The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality, California[edit]

Quality, 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)

One quality this place did not possess is permanence, as there is nothing at all there today. According to various topos and aerials, there was a siding here along with at least one large warehouse-like building and some other buildings. One topo labels the whole thing the Quality Ranch. No sign of a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an important article which will likely have no expansion in the future. Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This location has no significant notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:58, 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) 00:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kareem Knights[edit]

Kareem Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY --BlameRuiner (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 17:04, 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. Missvain (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali-Naghi Farmanfarmaian[edit]

Ali-Naghi Farmanfarmaian (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 be notable, and the sources appear to have been written by his relatives. Based on its current condition, it needs to be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 23:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article states that he was president of The Bank of Industries, which was merged with other banks to form Bank of Industry and Mine after the Iranian Revolution. I'm not sure whether that makes him notable or not, so I'll just leave it to the community. Keivan.f^Talk 23:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:MILL. CEO of a bank that was later merged into a larger bank. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable bank president.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamad bin Khalifa Al Nahyan[edit]

Hamad bin Khalifa Al Nahyan (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 no any reliable sources of Hamad bin Khalifa Al Nahyan being part of the Al Nahyan Royal family. All the references are related to Israeli football club or singer Omer Adam. His site and his organisation sites are registered several months ago. There is no any information in Arabic about him. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• :Keep his purchase was covered the past few days in all israeli major and reliable news sources and all refer to him as part of the nahyan royal family. Second, just by purchasing this importent team makes him worthy of an article on wikipedia, let alone being muslem or arab purchasing such an anti arab football team. All those reasons, each one and all together is the rason this article be kept.Midrashah (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Beitar Jerusalem F.C. as only claim to fame is ownership of that club. No independent notability that I can see. GiantSnowman 22:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• :Keep tons of news about this purchase in Arabic media, just google بيتار القدس all mentioning that he is part of the royal family, much of it being critical of the Sheikh for investing in a Zionist team, if the fact that he is part of the Al Nahyan Royal Family would at all be debatable they would dig it up and publish it. Also the government of UAE would surely speak up, if someone would just claim to be part of the royal family without any basis. Shemtovca (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Agree he is otherwise not so far notable. Disagree the purchase doesn't confer notability, it's a huge move and highly controversial yet over time looks shaped to be an important part of the future of Arab-Israeli relations. I'd wait, TBH... I know, I know, WP:NOTNEWS but anyone with a passing interest in the region will tell you this is (depending on POV, for better or worse) a big, long-term deal. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepXavierGreen (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• update just saw this from an Israeli publication כאן חדשות Documents testify: The investor in Betar Jerusalem - a member of the distant circle of the ruling family ^[1]. Since the primary question of this AFD was investigated and answered i believe this AFD should be closed as it makes suggestions that have been proven wrong. Part of WP:AFDEQ states Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people., i believe questioning someone's belonging to his family without basis falls into this category. Shemtovca (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this is borderline notability, but it seems like this person will continue to get additional coverage in the future. Several sources also describe him as the son of Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, including [1]. This page also looks to be a duplicated with Mohammed bin Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wallyfromdilbert, That is exactly the case. He is not a son of Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, being a very distant relative of a ruling family, who changed his name several years ago. He is known only for purchasing the Beitar and while it's itself a news, I don't belive it grants an independant article Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment @Fenix down: I believe the page has enough to satisfy the GNG here are some reputable sources:

• The Jerusalem Post^[2]
• כאן חדשות^[3]
• National Post^[4]
• Reuters^[5]
• Israel Hayom^[6]
• Times Of Israel^[7]
• ynet^[8]
• Haaretz^[9]

Shemtovca (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of coverage. N.B.: Not a fan. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The coverage is related to one recent event only. The notability is not inherited. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The whole story is very strange. This reference 'https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/uae-owner-of-jerusalem-soccer-club-says-door-open-to-arab-players-1.9357016', which is supposed to be one of the most respectable sources in Israel, calls him "the son of the United Arab Emirates' President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan", while Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan has only two sons - Sultan and Mohammed! So, how can we believe all these sources, if even most respectable of them do not check facts. There are no references to anyone named "Hamad bin Khalifa Al Nahyan" on any of the UAE official sites, as well as no any arabic news about him. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment response: @Arthistorian1977: So is your argument for deleting a page is that Haaretz didn't verify their report??? Thats a very strange standart to apply to deleting pages from Wikipedia. Here is someone who did verify their information and saw his documents https://www.kan.org.il/Item/?itemId=81167, they even got pictures of his ID card, he is not the son of the president. Aside of Haaretz saying he is son of the president, do you have any other reasons for deletion? Shemtovca (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The Hebrew words for Prince, Chief, and President are the same, so the error may be in translation rather than in fact. The word (nasi, sorry I can't type Hebrew letters on my machine) is more vague in Hebrew than in English and it would not be inaccurate to describe his father as such. This may have then been translated incorrectly as "President" at which point a copy editor in English may have noticed the "President" had the "wrong" name and "fixed" it. Without seeing the original Hebrew I have no way of knowing, though. In any case, that's not a reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyShemtovca, no this is not my argument. My argument is that he is not member of the ruling family of Dubai, he is a distant relative, who changed his name several years ago. Hence he is known only for purchase of Beitar. The notability is not inherited, so, I don't see any reason for him having an independant article. Smartyllama, the translation does not matter - he is not a member of a ruling family, he is distant relative. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Arthistorian1977:

1) majority of media coverage disagrees with you and refers to him as a member of the ruling family, wikipedia pages need to be based on the coverage / reliable sources. See sources cited above.

2) The notability is also based on media coverage that predates the purchase of Beitar see ^[10] & ^[11]

Shemtovca (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources shown during this AfD. If this turns out to be a one event story I would change my vote in a second round of AfD but I think there are going to be more sources to come. Spudlace (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article is already at AfD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazi Bismillah khan[edit]

Ghazi Bismillah khan (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-liner BLP, there is already an existing Draft:Ghazi Bismillah khan by the same author with the same in formation so I can't move this JW 1961 Talk 22:50, 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) 01:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazi Bismillah khan[edit]

Ghazi Bismillah khan (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 recreation of an article previously deleted under A7. I don't know how the article looked back then, but there is nothing now to suggest the subject is notable. I have not found any sources either. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unsourced one-liner BLP. There is also an exact copy by the same creator at Draft:Ghazi Bismillah khan JW 1961 Talk 23:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unreferenced with no sign of notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:MILL. Unclear allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 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) 01:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryuki Matsuya[edit]

Ryuki Matsuya (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 essentially the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shun Sato (footballer, born 1990), only this footballers played 4 league games for the same club, not 1 game. At least 70 AFD discussions (with more being added every week) say that this is not enough because of the WP:GNG fail. Geschichte (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clear consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed. Looking at Soccerway each of his appearances appears to have been for 2-3 minutes per match. GiantSnowman 11:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't figure out what the Japanese version of his name is as there appear to be different translations for both of his names. For English coverage at least (which is the main language for Singapore football news), there is nothing to suggest that he can pass GNG, which is hardly surprising considering that he has only played 8 12 mins of professional sport. Spiderone 13:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This needs a lot better sourcing before it can be proven that it can be a full-fledged article.Katemeshi101 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. -Cupper52 (talk) 08:19, 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 merge to Ronaldinho. Closing early due to solid consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Ronaldinho[edit]

List of international goals scored by Ronaldinho (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 this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect back to parent article per recent AFD consensus (see e.g. this and this. GiantSnowman 22:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - the content is not large enough that it requires a separate list and he's not even in the top 5 top scorers for Brazil let alone the top scorer Spiderone 14:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to parent article per above comments. Same for all similar articles.   // Timothy :: talk  20:14, 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 merge to Arjen Robben. Closing due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Arjen Robben[edit]

List of international goals scored by Arjen Robben (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 this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect back to parent article per recent AFD consensus (see e.g. this and this. GiantSnowman 22:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I feel this one can be merged back also. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - no reason for this to have its own article Spiderone 10:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and please collapse (hide) this table in the merged article because this is very detailed. Such a merge would still be better than redirect, the other option that crossed my mind. Kudos to User:Bait30 for the invested nomination! gidonb (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to parent article per above comments. I believe the consensus is for a merge or redirect for all similar articles.   // Timothy :: talk  20:18, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Zissou (jurist)[edit]

Steve Zissou (jurist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Aside from an implausible unsourced section - this guy's claim to fame is having the same name as a fictional character. Paul ❬talk❭ 21:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 21:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 21:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete per nom, the controversies section is WP:OR as it stands. Geschichte (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG and more specifically User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability. I've never heard of him, although he was an assistant DA in Queens. It appears he was in the past a co-worker of my best friend from high school. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Zissou is not a lawyer. He's a criminal masquerading as a lawyer. Any and all marketing assistance he receives, like a Wikipedia page, subjects unsuspecting clients to theft of their money followed by long periods of prison time. POSTED 12DEC20 by Howard Leventhal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlev3 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only thing that is a claim to fame is he allegedly got a reference to him as a prominent lawyer, basically a free add, at the end of a film that happened to unintentionally use his name. Even if there was a full length film that was a fictionalized version of his life, that would not make him clearly notable. In this case it is a passing mention, film companies are not our standard sources for what lawyers are notable, "prominent" is not notable, and the prepondenance of evidence suggests Zissou is not "prominent". He does not meet the one somewhat useable test we have for lawyers (which has not been adopted officially, but it is better than just declaring any lawyer who spends enough on advertising notable. When a three or four paragrpah article is mentioning when the subject made a motion for a trial to be declared to have a hung jury, it is pretty clear the subject is not notable. Even being the actual DA in Queens is not going to be a sign of true notability, there are DAs or county prosecutors as is the Michigan equivalent, who are notable, such as Kym Worthy, and others go on to become notable, such as the soon to be vice president of the United States. I would not be surprised if most Queen DAs pass notability, but assistant DAs rarely do (Kym Worthy might have been notable back when she was in a position that in other states would be called assistant DA, she lead out in prosecuting Budzyn and Nevers for allegedly murdering Malice Green, this was the biggest trial in Detroit in the 1990s, and recieved coverage outside Michigan, although as a metro-Detroit resident, I have no easy sense of how much. For the record I created the article on Worthy. That was back in 2008, so she was county prosecutor for about 4 years before there was an article on her, so no one ever had to justify having an article on her before she was county prosecutor).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 21 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) 01:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Softcom[edit]

Softcom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A7 borderline eligible UPE article on a non notable organization that falls short of WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. I probably should have used the A7 but from my experience in dealing with UPE I have observed an AFD is imperative for a future G4 use. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there. I'm sure you know what you're doing, but I have a hard time connecting the dots here. I took a quick look at these sources [2][3][4], and they seem to provide some coverage of the subject. I was also able to find additional sources online with a cursory search on Google News. I'll take a closer look at them later (I need to go AFK for a bit) but I'm curious as to why you think they don't meet the standards of WP:ORGCRIT? It's possible that the articles are not independent of the subject (this happens all the time in the business world), but the sources themselves don't say they were written by Softcom.

Also, I'm skeptical of the UPE allegation, mainly because the work is of such a poor quality that I have a hard time believing that anyone is paying for it. If it's true, then someone's not getting their money's worth. But I'm not involved in the case, so I'm just sharing my observation. Edge3 (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Edge3, good question! The first and second source you linked are long announcements which do not discuss the organization itself per se with WP:SIGCOV. The third one is also an an announcement but even worse is, it is written by a guest editor which means it is probably a sponsored post which per WP:RS we consider to be unreliable. I’m happy to provide further clarifications if you need me to. Celestina007 (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Thank you. I've taken a closer look at the sources, along with another one I just found, and I agree that they do not establish a sufficient amount of significant coverage. The standard of review is specified in WP:ORGCRIT. Most news coverage is routine coverage of a product or initiative. However, I should emphasize that I'm disregarding the WP:UPE allegation, since it's not relevant to determining notability for AfD purposes. Edge3 (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:ORGCRIT is the most significant link to use to evaluate company pages. Unfortunately, none of the references listed above, on the page itself, or found in a Google search meet this criteria.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While there is some in-depth coverage about the company, the press articles are mostly churnalism, with little or no analysis, evaluation or interpretation about the company and its activities, therefore failing the independent / secondary requirements of WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:47, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Morgan (actress)[edit]

Jamie Morgan (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't appear to be particlarly notable; most film appearances appear to be bit-part roles in unnotable B-movies. All refs are to listings and IMdB. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete she appeared in 1 film we almost have an article on, except that is an article on the multi-film series she was in 1 film of. There is nothing to suggest she is even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and User:Johnpacklambert Spiderone 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. At best I'd also propose a move to draft until better sources are found. Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 22:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. According to IMDb, she has a major role in #LawstinWoods, a television web series which appears in our list of notable such entities, though does not have a separate article. There are several upcoming roles in IMDb, including something that might be another Camp Blood film. Userifying in case the subject becomes notable in the future might be an option, if the creator desired that. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - No objections to draftifying or recreating once notability's been established but until then no valid reason to keep this around, Obviously failed GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:15, 21 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 19:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social Credit-National Unity[edit]

Social Credit-National Unity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

"Social Credit-National Unity" was not a party, merely the banner used by a single candidate in a single election, who won a paltry 1.1% of the vote.

And that's about all we know for certain. About half the article (which, granted, is so short that "half" amounts to only a few sentences) is spent talking about each half of the banner, and saying it's unclear whether the candidate actually had the backing of either party, or if he had any affiliation with a similarly-named "National Unity" candidate. If there's so little information out there on what this political designation even meant, it's hard to say this justifies its own article. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no significance and lasting importance, making whatever coverage there is, trivial. Geschichte (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is really just a biography of an unsuccessful (and therefore non-notable per WP:NPOL) political candidate, titled with his self-conferred ballot affiliation instead of his name in an attempt to make it look like an article about a political party instead of a non-notable biography. But even the inclusion standards for political parties don't grant automatic inclusion to every "party" that's ever appeared on a ballot either, and still require evidence of actual registration as a true political party and evidence of reliable source coverage about the party, and this article isn't showing any of that either. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 21 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) 01:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National-Unity (candidate)[edit]

National-Unity (candidate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

"National-Unity" was the ballot designation of a single candidate in a single election. It is apparently the candidate's personal variation on the "National Government" label that the Conservatives used at the time, as he was endorsed by the party and ran with their full support. With that in mind, there isn't a compelling reason why the banner merits its own article, and that the information— the little there is— can't be covered on the Conservative Party's page, under the section that deals with their one-off use of "National Government". (Indeed, there's so little here that there's a sentence to say it's unknown if the candidate had any affiliation with another candidate who used a similar banner…) — Kawnhr (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is really just a biography of an unsuccessful (and therefore non-notable per WP:NPOL) political candidate, titled with his self-conferred ballot affiliation instead of his name in an attempt to make it look like an article about a political party instead of a non-notable biography. But even the inclusion standards for political parties don't grant automatic inclusion to every "party" that's ever appeared on a ballot either, and still require evidence of actual registration as a true political party and evidence of reliable source coverage about the party, and this article isn't showing any of that either. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 21 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) 01:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition Party (Canada)[edit]

Prohibition Party (Canada) (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 "Prohibition Party" was the ballot designation of a single candidate in a single election. Said candidate received 0.8% of the vote. There's nothing to suggest this was a real, organized party, or that the person and/or their candidacy was in any way notable. In fact, there's so little to say about this so-called party that the page has remained unchanged (except a calculation of their vote percentage) since its creation in 2004, and I can't foresee any significant information being uncovered about a forgotten fringe candidate. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge any relevant information into Prohibition in Canada. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is really just a biography of an unsuccessful (and therefore non-notable per WP:NPOL) political candidate, titled with his self-conferred ballot affiliation instead of his name in an attempt to make it look like an article about a political party instead of a non-notable biography. But even the inclusion standards for political parties don't grant automatic inclusion to every "party" that's ever appeared on a ballot either, and still require evidence of actual registration as a true political party and evidence of reliable source coverage about the party, and this article isn't showing any of that either. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 21 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 speedy keep. WP:SK2 - bad-faith AfD nomination by a pretty obvious sock. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Alahverdian[edit]

Nicholas Alahverdian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG and is a BLP1E. The article may have many references but he was not a public figure with notability enough for a encyclopedia article. Aroundthebends (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Aroundthebends, Who are you? Why have these been your first edits? Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Rated C-Class in all WikiProjects it’s in interest of. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets GNG as it did when it was nominated a year ago Spiderone 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article passes all the criteria you said it didn't (WP:GNG and WP:BIO). Please consider making more edits before proposing the deletion of any article, especially one like this in such good standing. You have only made 4 Wikipedia edits and they are all on this article. Coreykai (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep no change since last time(s). Nomination by a WP:SPA, also see recent disruption by others. SPI may be warranted as well.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Subject meets the GNG and these repeated nominations, frankly, stink. Miniapolis 23:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination by obvious SPA. The article subject satisfies the GNG and is well referenced. ♟♙ (talk) 00:29, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Singh (film producer)[edit]

Rajesh Singh (film producer) (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. The sources provided are all paid articles and do not add up to establishing notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:MILL. He funded two films. So what? Bearian (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not seeing any real claim to notability here Spiderone 13:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 21 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) 01:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K N George[edit]

K N George (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 notable, not written in an encyclopediac tone VERSACESPACE 16:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet any of the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A WP:VAGUEWAVE and no evidence of WP:BEFORE. Content is irrelevant at AfD. Simple precursory viewing shows meeting WP:NPROF criteria 2 and 3 (awards and positions in international bodies, VP of the IASSW and President of the ASSWI). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing enough to pass NPROF/GNG. I don't see why "VP of the IASSW and President of the ASSWI" should be sufficient, those are minor bodies that nobody even bothered to stub here yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and as Piotrus points out, without those two minor bodies, doesn't pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "minor bodies ... nobody has bothered to stub yet" ... International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW).--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Does the directorship of the Madras School of Social Work qualify for WP:NPROF C6? Am I correct that the relationship of the school with the University of Madras is similar to that of e.g. Berkeley with the U California system? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The equivalent would be more like one of the autonomous colleges within the University of Oxford system; nevertheless, I would agree that he still qualifies for C6. Depending on the survey MSSW is ranked 3rd or 4th best social work school in India. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:18, 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. Missvain (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calico, Kern County, California[edit]

Calico, Kern County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A siding apparently put in to serve a warehouse complex that is still in business at the same location; the original building is still in use. Just another NN rail spot. Mangoe (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mangoe: you really should consider using Wikipedia:Proposed deletion for uncontroversial deletions. Jeepday (talk) 18:48, 21 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. Views are split fairly evenly between keep, redirect and delete and I don't think there's going to be any agreement soon. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese sandwich[edit]

Cheese sandwich (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 one seems to be a catchall for any sandwich made with cheese. All of the mentioned sandwiches also have their own articles, and there is no source that ties them all together as a single topic or supports the first-sentence definition of a "basic" cheese sandwich. Any content that could be added here should instead be used to expand the main Sandwich article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination does not seem to contain a reason to delete; it seems to be a vague sort of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In that spirit, let me commend the following droll item by James May: The Cheese Sarnie. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands this article is really nothing more than an eleborate dictionary definition. Nothing suggests this can easily be changed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The title of the article is not a word; it's a phrase. It contains no etymology, pronunciation, spelling nor grammar. It could hardly be less like a dictionary entry. See WP:DICDEF for an explanation of the difference and the "perennial source of confusion". Andrew🐉(talk) 21:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew. ser! (let's discuss it). 01:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't you need to declare a conflict of interest here? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha! Didn't even know that one myself, that gave me a good chuckle. ser! (let's discuss it). 13:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The issue here is that there are no sources talking about actual Cheese Sandwiches here. Almost all of the content of this article, which also accounts for most of the sources, are on Grilled cheese sandwiches, which already has its own, separate article, making most of this page redundant. The other two sources are also not on "cheese sandwiches", but on sandwiches that just happen to include cheese on them (the source on the "pickle and cheese sandwich", for example, is actually on pickles). I'm not discounting there being some sources on "cheese sandwiches", but just a cursory look for sources just turns up results that are either just recipes, or talking about Grilled cheese. Unless sources turn up during this AFD that actually talk about cheese sandwiches as a distinct entity, separate from Grilled Cheese, then the content here really can't stay. If nothing else, then it could probably be Merged & Redirected to that article. Rorshacma (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of sandwiches or Grilled cheese. There are a wide variety of sandwiches, many of which include cheese as an ingredient, but that doesn't make all of them "cheese sandwiches" or that a notable topic to collate together under such a name. Rorshacma notes we already have Grilled cheese a specific type of sandwich, but we shouldn't have a duplicative article for any arbitrary food that can be put in bread in various combinations just to say "you can eat cheese on bread." Reywas92^Talk 02:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Grilled cheese, the only really notable example, per Reywas92. A ham and cheese isn't a cheese sandwich, any more than a BLT is a lettuce sandwich. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak, weak keep. Besides grilled cheese, the British seem to like the humble ungrilled variety a lot: The Guardian calls it a "British lunchtime staple".[5] Delete the ham and cheese and breakfast sandwiches as blasphemous abominations. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of sandwiches, which I think is the better target, since there can be a simple ungrilled cheese sandwich. But the points brought up by others, that this isn't really about "cheese" sandwiches is valid. If better sourcing on the simple cheese sandwich is available then I would change my vote, but I can't find any (searches only turned up grilled cheese examples).Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seems like a viable article. Counterproposals such as "redirect to list of sandwiches" would cause a loss of meaningful content, redirecting to "grilled cheese" fails a basic test since a grilled cheese sandwich is actually be a subset of cheese sandwiches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHateAccounts (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete outright Having looked the article over a couple of times, I am just not seeing the notion of cheese sandwiches as a whole as being shown to be notable. Once grilled cheese is taken out of the picture, none of the examples in the article actually are cheese sandwiches: they are all cases in which it is combined with some other filling. I could support a list of notable cheese sandwiches, were there one, but right now we are reduced to repeating the content of the grilled cheese article, and the obvious, banal, and uninformative statement that people use cheese as an ingredient in sandwiches. I don't see the point of redirecting to the list of sandwiches given that, it would appear, only a single entry in the list is a cheese sandwich. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is so obviously going to be sought after by students - our core readership - that deleting it seems as cruel as I can imagine. There's also whole cookbooks on the variety of cheese sandwiches. Improve it, don't delete it. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of a cheese sandwich cookbook? I didn't find anything like that in my search (just loads of stuff about grilled cheese), but it would certainly contribute to establishing notability. –dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As duplicative and trivial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of sandwiches. This is not notable for its own article unlike its cousin the grilled cheese. There is little to no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources about a basic cheese sandwich. Missvain (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are international agreements about this even. https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/eu-affairs/146285/banned-after-brexit-entering-the-eu-with-a-cheese-sandwich/ Google news shows 49,400 results. There are news articles in reliable sources about various types of cheese sandwiches, how to make them, reviews of them, etc. Dream Focus 13:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Cheese sandwich is very notable. Also, even if the current article is below par. It can be improved rather than be deleted.Kieran207 (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While the topic may be notable, or at least of some interest, as noted by Mangoe above this article contains no worthwhile content, and there are no obvious venues of improvement or expansion. Sandstein 17:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there's no content in here other than summaries of other articles. At best, this is a disambiguation to Cheese and pickle sandwich / grilled cheese. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I see this as a high-level article that likely won't include a great amount of text on its own apart from summaries of subtopics. We have cheese sandwich, grilled cheese, cheese dream, cheese on toast (?), melt sandwich, carrozza (sandwich), not to mention sandwiches which focus on the cheese even if there's also a protein like chopped cheese and others listed at Category:Cheese sandwiches. It's hard to argue that these sandwiches aren't related, but "grilled cheese" doesn't seem like the top-level subject that the rest grew out of. There are some sources, but it's a hard one to search for. It seems like if anything grilled cheese would be merged here, no? I'm not arguing that we should do that -- it's certainly independent notable -- but it seems odd to not have this article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to dab or convert to list, sort of per Rhododendrites. We have lots of articles about cheese sandwiches, and this is an extraordinarily plausible search term. Might as well give readers some place to find articles like: Cheese and pickle sandwich, Cheese dream, Grilled cheese, etc. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're thinking of List of sandwiches. Maybe that should be organized some way by ingredients rather than alphabetically. Reywas92^Talk 23:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough—in which case, a redirect to List of sandwiches would not be amiss either. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of sandwiches, to cover all types of "cheese sandwich". Organizing by ingredients could create duplication, so creating a List of cheese sandwiches could work as well with sources like The Guardian one above. We can discuss organizing List of sandwiches on its talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:21, 23 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 deleted as G11/12. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Nayeri[edit]

Melody Nayeri (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 musician. ... discospinster _talk 16:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources fail to establish notability; they are either unreliable or primary or both Spiderone 21:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dont Delete-She was the main singer of Sher Yadet Nareh 2018 (Persian version of Don’t Forget the Lyrics!)on Manoto TV^[1] This show was very popular among the Iranian people
• Dont Delete-She was the main singer of Sher Yadet Nareh 2018 (Persian version of Don’t Forget the Lyrics!)on Manoto TV^[2]Also,the news section of a reputable magazine has written about her in the field of music(jamsphere magazine)
• Dont Delete-She Is notable musician — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radinkhan (talk • contribs) 02:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced that those sources are anywhere near enough even for WP:BASIC, sorry Spiderone 10:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as G12 as it is copyvio, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:39, 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. Missvain (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patch, California[edit]

Patch, 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'm guessing that Durham calls this a locale, and the topos make things reasonably clear: there might have been a church in the area, but it appears to have been the sole structure there until a set of sidings was built to serve what is now the "Headquarters and Cold Storage" unit of Kirschenman Enterprises, whose business dates back to 1939. The spot is still in the midst of a patchwork of farmland outside Lamont, and I do not see that it is a notable location as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unable to locate any sources to support that "Patch" (not to be confused with nearby "Weedpatch") ever supported a population. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:13, 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. Sandstein 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Floehr[edit]

Eric Floehr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While the company he founded may be notable, not enough in-depth coverage about him for him to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 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 speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Ihtisham[edit]

Waqar Ihtisham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Has never played in an official match for Pakistan nor in a game between two clubs playing in an WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Spiderone 15:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it might be worth considering WP:SALT if consensus is to delete. Spiderone 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:17, 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 speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Waheed[edit]

Muhammad Waheed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Has never played in an official match for Pakistan nor in a game between two clubs playing in an WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Spiderone 15:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it might be worth considering WP:SALT if consensus is to delete. Spiderone 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:17, 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 keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Belkin[edit]

Avi Belkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Insufficiently notable per WP:BIO Sonnenradical (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, almost too early in his career. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After creating this nomination, I noticed that the article was created and substantially edited by User:Belkinavi who is likely the subject of the article. So, in addition to the already mentioned notability concerns, there is also COI (Which of course is not, in itself a grounds for deletion). I noted this on the article's talk page as well Sonnenradical (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom + the possible COI especially because of WP:TOOSOON. BJackJS talk 19:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very clearly a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have cleaned up the article from any puff, COI, and excessive information. gidonb (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, award-winning filmmaker. I have added info and sources. No grounds for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:DIRECTOR #3 and the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Speedy keep. Nominator created a dormant, double blank (user/talk_user) account in February 2019. On 15 December 2020, nom started and finished editing with the immediate nomination of just one single article and a COI comment on its talk page and here. Never touched anything but Avi Belkin. As I mentioned above, the nomination intro does not hold water. Even more about this nomination seems wrong. gidonb (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Meanwhile, the nominator has been blocked. Was a sockpuppet of a well-known sockpuppeteer. gidonb (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple RS articles on each of his last two movies, meets GNG. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:12, 24 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Vogt[edit]

Jackie Vogt (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 and WP:NFOOTBALL. Only assertion of notability is for playing 97 mins in the W-League. Has now switched code and plays in the semi-pro AFLW. No evidence of significant coverage from independent sources; passing mention here and good coverage here but the source is a primary one. Spiderone 12:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or draftify - she's now on an AFLW team, which is a different sport entirely, and the AFLW gets good national coverage (AFLW does better on TV than men's A-League.) The wrinkle here is she hasn't played in an AFLW match yet, so this may be a WP:TOOSOON, and GNG is marginal as well. She is not notable for roundball-footy. Probably should be moved to Jacqui Vogt as well. SportingFlyer T·C 17:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete has not actually played in a game. It is time we stopped creating articles prematurely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 16:57, 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. Closing early due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Watts (British businessman)[edit]

James Watts (British businessman) (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 real claim to notability other than a lot of WP:NOTINHERITED - all I can see is that his son became a politician, a house he lived in was an inspiration for a fictional house, and two books were dedicated to him. Per WP:GNG, no significant coverage exists in any reliable sources, only passing mentions, and key details are sourced to Find A Grave, which is specifically deprecated at WP:RSPSRC. ninety:one 12:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ninety:one 12:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete rather ho-hum career/life. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL and WP:NOTINHERITED. This was a very ordinary business person whose only claim to fame is being the brother-in-law of a famous writer. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. This appears to be WP:MILL. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as has been said, notability is not inherited. And without that, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As said notability is not inherited. He had a few famous relatives including his son and his sister-in-law (Agatha Christie), but, from what is in the article, I do not think there is enough in his own life that would give the sort of notability I would expect for a businessman with a Wikipedia article. I did wonder if the fact that as the article mentions he had some influence on Christie could swing things, but I do not think from what is said that he can be said to have had a significant impact on her career, and mention of him in this respect could be adequately covered in the appropriate articles of the two novels dedicated to him and the one he is said to have partly inspired The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Indeed he is mentioned in its article, although it does not link to his article. Also Abney Hall covers the Christie connection quite well. His wife currently redirects to Agatha Christie, but I do not think that would be appropriate for this article. Dunarc (talk) 21:43, 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 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 110[edit]

London Buses route 110 (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 don't see how this article is significant enough for a place on Wikipedia. I understand that it may be of interest of importance to some, but there is little content. There is some data on this in the List of Bus Routes in London page, and this should be enough. Quoll662 (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: meets the NCTEST The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

Could you elaborate on the "NCTEST"? SK2242 (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete So far all I can find is Richmond & Twickenham Times in terms of significant coverage. SK2242 (talk) 12:36, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Peat[edit]

Nora Peat (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 assertion of notability is playing 124 mins in the W-League. I could not find one example of significant coverage of Peat, failing WP:GNG. She is an active player but only in the lower divisions. Spiderone 12:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet our far too broad football inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 16:56, 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. Closing early due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bamidele Adams[edit]

Bamidele Adams (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 properly sourced and fails in GNG Akronowner (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Akronowner (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — UPE article on a non notable individual. Celestina007 (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this fails WP:BASIC Spiderone 16:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable figure in the entertainment business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above; in addition, since he only produced a singled notable show, WP:BLP1E applies, as does WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 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. Sandstein 17:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Evans[edit]

Lesley Evans (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 subject fails all criteria at WP:MUSICBIO, having appeared on one concert and one album track. Notability is not inherited from notable siblings. There is nothing in this article that could not be accommodated in one paragraph of the Bee Gees article. WWGB (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with nominator's position. The subject's notability seemingly rests entirely on her relationship to the Bee Gees, and that does not justify and independent article. Dunarc (talk) 21:47, 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. Fenix down (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Sagar Ali[edit]

Muhammed Sagar Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Sagar Ali has never played in either of the two Indian leagues listed at WP:FPL and has never had a full international cap, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. The coverage, in my view, is not strong enough for a WP:GNG pass. In terms of WP:ATD, this could be sent to draft, however, we generally only do this if a footballer is very close to passing NFOOTBALL. Spiderone 11:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 16:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG here. HawkAussie (talk) 02:00, 21 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 speedy delete per WP:A7. SoWhy 08:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midnite String Quartet[edit]

Midnite String Quartet (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 could not find any evidence to suggest that this passes WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Coverage was difficult to find in WP:RS. Spiderone 10:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is certainly odd. The group has 215 albums listed (kudos to MS Excel for helping with the count) but I can find not one single reliable media mention or pro review of any of their releases. Some of their many albums are available in physical form at Amazon and such, and they don't ever get more than one or two customer reviews. Their other works are generally self-uploaded to services like Soundcloud where they get no notice. It appears that they never play live, or if they do then they are never promoted online. This poor band is doing a monstrous amount of work and getting zero notice, though I did find that their record of Jimmy Buffett covers generated a little chatter among his fans. I hope they're enjoying their esoteric hobby. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that they make most of their money from streaming on Spotify but their stats aren't even that high on there, really Spiderone 17:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Doomsdayer. Btw, this is as far from a Wikipedia article as it gets: a listing of their many albums, an infobox and two external links. Even if notability is proven somehow, it can't stay in a state like this. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there just seems to be nothing out there. I can't even find basic info like number of band members, what city they're from, names of band members... Spiderone 18:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then they are not notable. My delete vote is still standing. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7 as this band article does not make a claim to notability. --Paul ❬talk❭ 19:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've now tagged it. Spiderone 21:45, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

911 Nightmare[edit]

911 Nightmare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources, there are a number of self-published/blog style reviews but nothing with editorial oversight, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I searched, but other than a rating from Radio Times (minus any actual review) this film seems to have been solidly ignored by media outlets. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 10:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say delete. This definitely falls under my contention that U.S. TV movies that have aired on cable TV over the last 20 years are generally not notable, because most of them do not receive the level of significant coverage demanded by WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not enough citations, the film released 4 years ago so I'm not expecting any more sources to appear. Also, there's a nasty "press release"-style premise section. Scrooge200 (talk) 21:18, 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. Minus the various socks, rough consensus is that this spy story should not be covered as a separate article, because of WP:1E and WP:BLP concerns. Sandstein 17:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Fang[edit]

Christine Fang (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-factual suspicions in Axios article [6]. WP:NOT forum for espionage allegations. No case or allegations by authorities, so does not meet WP:CRIME, therefore not factually notable WP:N. Single news event WP:BIO1E mentioned under Eric_Swalwell#Ties_to_alleged_Chinese_spy. Inconsistent with List of Chinese spy cases in the United States. Consensual sexual activity disclosed must WP:AVOIDVICTIM. No real name or biographical details so fails WP:V. Fang is WP:LOWPROFILE. Likely defamatory under WP:BLP. Travelmite (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Yup, this bio article has gotta go. GoodDay (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BLP1E, BLPCRIME and lacking a prior public figure stance. The article only exists because Axios published this report which makes the assertion that Fang is a Chinese spy, which triggered several other media reports to see if they could see anything corroborating (this makes it a BLP1E issue). While this assertion may be true, that is not the same as an authoritative law agency making a sentencing or the like (the Axios report event has said the FBI has no comment on their investigative report). There may be factors of the Axios report to include elsewhere but there's no reason to have a separate article on the assertions that have yet to be proven out by law enforcement or in course for the person they are accusing. --Masem (t) 14:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As said above violates BLP1E. BJackJS talk 17:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I believe this is currently a BLP1E situation where there shouldn't be a standalone article. The 1E being the Axios report itself. All pertinent information can be put into the Swalwell article without necessarily naming her due to WP:SUSPECT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just bring in RS from Eric Swallell Charles Juvon (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per well reasoned argument of nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am persuaded by above mentioned reasons for inclusion in this project. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNG can't apply as the coverage only exists for 5 days (from Axios' Dec 10 article). GNG also looks for enduring coverage and we can't judge that yet. --Masem (t) 03:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not how GNG works. WP:N only says brief bursts of coverage may not indicate notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The above analysis spells out very clearly why this article is suitable for inclusion and deletion is unnecessary. It may need a clean-and-watch in some ways but WP:NOTCLEANUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside - while the argument I cite was made by a socking sock who socked, the analysis itself is still, I believe, on point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - BIO1E does not apply in this instance, since there was more than one politician involved. Easily passes WP:GNG as shown in Forevertruthsayer's analysis. Especially since the scandal just continues to grow. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The espionage is suspected. This reasoning presumes these suspicions are factual. Let the politicians or FBI prove these suspicions, if they can. Travelmite (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Based on sources in the article and strongly agree with the user Forevertruthsayer analysis. I have nothing to add all covered. Gharouni ^Talk 05:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I read the article, this individual didn't commit any crime, was tracked by the government (who reportedly are tracking 2,000 other Chinese visa holders), was never convicted or even accused of a crime. I'm sure that the government has thousands of cases of people they deem "suspicious" who do not have bios here and I think this violates BLP and is more salacious than informative. The article's use of "relationship" implies a sexual or romantic connection without actually proving anything of that nature exists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, when I did a copyright analysis, it appears that some of the article was taken from the Axios article and statements simply have quotation marks put around them to make it not a violation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted, we should consider removing her from other articles like List of Chinese spy cases in the United States#Christine Fang. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]