< December 02	December 04 >

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Companion[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Yes, I'm aware it has a Leonard Maltin review (1 and 2). However, a listing in Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide is considered "insufficient to fully establish notability" per NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, [[1]]. Why are so many early John Candy films being listed for deletion?? Donaldd23 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added information and references from The Globe and Mail, Starburst magazine and an Anthony Perkins biography. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, Toughpigs. I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 10:17, 4 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The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hired to Kill (1990 film)[edit]

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

Despite having a Film Threat review, it has no other significant coverage. Does not meet WP:NFILM. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, review at DVD Talk (a Reliable source) [[2]]. Hitcher vs. Candyman, are you doing a WP:BEFORE before you list these film for deletion? A great deal of them don't have sources in the article, but sources exist. Deletion should only be if sources CANNOT be found, not because the article lacks citations. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Donaldd23, I always do a WP:BEFORE and search for sources. I couldn't find on Google that DVD Talk source you found. I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hitcher vs. Candyman for reviewing my citation find. Appreciate your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:45, 4 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of the Eagle 2: Inside the Enemy[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFO; needs two or more sources to be eligible. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That’s plenty of sources. I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:40, 5 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of the Eagle (1987 film)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [[7]] and [[8]] Donaldd23 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I trust that they are reliable then. I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:39, 5 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) 01:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Code, California[edit]

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

Does not appear on topographic maps. Couldn't find it in the Google Books version of Gudde, and not really able to find anything I can nail down to be referring to this, although searching is hard due to the name being a common word. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory for every spot on--or was on--the map.TH1980 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Mass-producer negligently misrepresented the source: Durham says under the entry for Terese: "Lee's (1912) map shows has the name "Code" for a place located 4 miles south-southeast of Terese along the railroad", not that it is a notable community or settlement. Reywas92^Talk 00:37, 9 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) 01:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cambio, California[edit]

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

Appears on topos as a largely undeveloped point on the railroad. Gudde calls it a station. Further attempts to find coverage on newspapers.com and google books have failed for me because cambio is a common Spanish word, creating incredible amounts of noise. Looks to fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Cambio de agujas is one Spanish phrase for a railroad switch, and I see on the only topo which labels the spot that it's in a gothic typeface, which is not indicative of a settlement. At any rate, there's nothing around except for the seemingly inevitable benchmark. Mangoe (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Mass-producer negligently misrepresented the source: Durham says "locality: nearly 4 miles northeast of Mojave along Southern Pacific Railroad", not that it is a notable community or settlement, as is obvious on the maps. Reywas92^Talk 00:35, 9 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) 01:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PageRain[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. Pahunkat (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Somewhat promotional in tone. The company seems to be defunct. Archive.org suggests it hasn't had a meaningful website since 2016 and nobody seems to have even noted its demise as far as I can tell from a quick Google. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches find routine listings and a user-submitted review, but nothing to demonstrate that it ever attained WP:NWEB / WP:NCORP notability. AllyD (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to have been notable when it existed, less notable now that it seems to be gone. Jeepday (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the network. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:54, 7 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) 01:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Williams (footballer, born 1976)[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is from technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL for making one substitute appearance in a professional football match for Mansfield. I could find no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG from this cameo or from his non-league career. Almost a carbon copy of Wayne Stark who also made just one appearance for the same club. He has a profile on Soccerbase but it's very brief. Spiderone 21:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, more Mansfield-cruft, and his non-league spells were very short-lived, a couple of months at best. Geschichte (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: to the nominator who close AFDs with long disambigutators like this one has, please check if there are other Mike Williams (footballer, born xx) and maybe move them to just (footballer). Thanks, Geschichte (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need, this article is one of four Mike Williams (footballer) articles. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when there is a complete lack of coverage, failing GNG. Giant Snowman 11:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is time to redo our football notability guidelines to stop Wikipedia from turning into footballpedia. Or maybe it is to end Wikipedia being footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't "turning into footballpedia", it's only AFD that is. Peter James (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JPL here. It's simply absurd that someone can be presumed notable, in some cases, for playing one minute of their sport. Apply that to actors and then see how ludicrous it sounds. Spiderone 19:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's better to have a complete set of articles here for WP:NFOOTBALL than maintain a complete set on another site and a separate incomplete set here. Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article, there's no reason to say they shouldn't be as a reason to keep an article. Peter James (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wholly non-notable in the context of a general encyclopaedia. Specialist Fandom sites are there for a reason. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:15, 7 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) 01:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Ables[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramak Safi, which is how I stumbled across this page also. Adrian Ables played 73 minutes of league soccer (spread across 5 matches) during his very short senior career. No independent significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when there is a complete lack of coverage, failing GNG. Giant Snowman 21:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better to have a complete set of articles here for WP:NFOOTBALL than maintain a complete set on another site and a separate incomplete set here. Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article, there's no reason to say they shouldn't be as a reason to keep an article. Peter James (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely and utterly fails WP:GNG; NFOOTBALL is a useful guideline designed to help us decide whether an article is likely to pass GNG. In these sorts of cases where the footballer clearly fails GNG, the borderline passing of NFOOTBALL is irrelevant Spiderone 19:06, 7 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) 01:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Evers[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramak Safi, which is how I found this page also. Sebastian Evers played 1 league game (actually 57 minutes) during his very short senior career. No independent significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when there is a complete lack of coverage, failing GNG. Giant Snowman 21:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better to have a complete set of articles here for WP:NFOOTBALL than maintain a complete set on another site and a separate incomplete set here. Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article, there's no reason to say they shouldn't be as a reason to keep an article. Peter James (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely and utterly fails WP:GNG; NFOOTBALL is a useful guideline designed to help us decide whether an article is likely to pass GNG. In these sorts of cases where the footballer clearly fails GNG, the borderline passing of NFOOTBALL is irrelevant Spiderone 19:16, 7 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) 01:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Nasta[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramak Safi, which is how I found this page also. Kyle Nasta started 1 league game during his very short senior career, and was substituted once. Note: His career is not ongoing, and the team no longer exists. No independent significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when there is a complete lack of coverage, failing GNG. Giant Snowman 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reasonable criteria would make Nasta a notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better to have a complete set of articles here for WP:NFOOTBALL than maintain a complete set on another site and a separate incomplete set here. Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article, there's no reason to say they shouldn't be as a reason to keep an article. Peter James (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and User:Johnpacklambert Spiderone 19:17, 7 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) 01:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Morant[edit]

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

The biography is chock full of vanity galleries. Including a new one: Trevisan International Art. Almost everything that could satisfy N is unverifiable. Premio alla Carriera, The Manifestation of the Spiritual in Art, Della Critica, Medaglia del Presidente della Repubblica is unverifiable. The only mentions of it are on this article and Morant’s webpage. Only thing that is legit is the Montana Lindauer Art Award award. But... there is apparently an exhibition of finalists, then one awardee. I couldn’t verify whether he won the award, let alone whether he was in the exhibition. There are only a few copies of the exhibition catalog, and all in NZ. Even if he were to have won the award, I don’t think it is enough for N. For example, there isn't article on the award. And Only one other bio on en wiki cites it, despite the fact many but not all of the awardees have articles here. That article Megan Jenkinson derives is N from multiple museum collections. Theredproject (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not going to do a search on this one; I trust the nom's opinion. Article is constructed on a bed of puffery. Possibly (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doe snot meet any of the categories of WP:GNG...only two major contributors, the last one with IP from New Zealand... A google search does not return much. Kolma8 (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, tagged for needing reference for 10+Years. No indication of Notablitly/ Jeepday (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I follow the NYC arts community closely. This person has never had an exhibit at a major gallery. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 8 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) 01:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daljeet Kaur[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, already tagged for a long time Heba Aisha (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, surely does not meet General notability guideline. Kolma8 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She acted in very minor roles. References are taken from blogs. Dwain09877 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 4 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. Missvain (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorr Jatt Da[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2011.completely fails WP:GNG. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong DeleteKolma8 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references available. Dwain09877 (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We really need to start scrapping all unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artical is unsoursed, and it's too short. Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 19:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and unsourced article. VocalIndia (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 23:15, 5 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) 01:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Badla Jatti Da[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only movie video occurs on google search. No third party independent published source for this. Whatever result occurs on google search are the article related to other movies with similarities in name ex: Badla, hindi word translated as revenge,is in the name of many hindi movies. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Strong Delete. Very weak IMDb coverage (only 16 ratings). Kolma8 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 23:15, 5 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) 01:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeona[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, unrefrenced since 2016, lack of third party independent sources. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure why it was deleted in 2016 per a speedy deletion request. Kolma8 (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did a quick search and can't see any way that this can pass WP:GNG Spiderone 21:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't think this is relevant. Dwain09877 (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything to justify the article. Looks like someone's own ideas.Less Unless (talk) 10:39, 4 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) 01:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Edwards[edit]

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

non-notable ; not in any permanent collection of a museum' no substantial critical studies. Almost every reference is either form the galleries that sell his work, and are therefore not independent, or an interview where he is allowed to say what he pleases about himself, and such interviews are also not independent. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is terrible, and I cannot find anything to improve it. Not to be confused with the New York City-based artist from the 1960s with the name Gregory Edwards, who was the brother of Melvin Edwards. Possibly (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I spent some time to clean up the article to try to distill it down to the actual content, and I'm sorry to say there is not much to substantiate his notability. The article was created by and improved by two single-purpose editors, which could be coincidental. However, after checking the references, many of them are permanent 404 dead links, or don't mention him at all, or are primary sources like press releases Does not pass WP:GNG. There are no collections or significant exhibition record to pass WP:NARTIST. If others can find SIGCOV in reliable sources I might be open to changing this !vote, but it seems doubtful. Netherzone (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see that Netherzone made an attempt to improve the article and is recommending its deletion. The version prior to that attempt also does not appear to meet WP:NARTIST. Jeepday (talk) 15:00, 7 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) 01:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Mulligan[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is from technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL for playing one minute of professional football for Mansfield; a totally inconsequential substitute appearance at the end of a match. I could find no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG from this one minute cameo or from his non-league career. Almost a carbon copy of Wayne Stark who also made just one appearance for the same club. Spiderone 19:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - scraping by on NFOOTBALL is not enough when GNG is failed so comprehensively. Giant Snowman 21:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time we stopped treating people as notable for appearing in just one game. This is just plain silly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even more silly that someone can pass this notability standard for playing just one minute! I bet some streakers have had more time on the pitch than Mulligan!! Spiderone 21:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's better to have a complete set of articles here for WP:NFOOTBALL than maintain a complete set on another site and a separate incomplete set here. Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article, there's no reason to say they shouldn't be as a reason to keep an article. Peter James (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the very top of WP:NFOOTBALL, it says This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. NFOOTBALL is merely a guideline to help us decide whether something will pass WP:GNG. If someone comprehensively fails GNG, it's fair to say that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient. Mulligan is an amateur footballer who just so happened to play one minute (one minute!) of a game between two professional teams. Spiderone 19:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly ludicrous that this article was ever created. He is a wholly non-notable figure who probably would only have a stub entry even on a Mansfield Town Fandom site. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. The funny thing is, if the ball didn't go out of play at all towards the end of that match, Mulligan would never have made a one minute cameo and would never have had an article! Spiderone 10:09, 8 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) 01:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of mainland European football club nicknames[edit]

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

As per strong consensus here and here. Also as per WP:IINFO and failure of WP:LISTN. The list has no navigational purpose. Spiderone 21:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, pure LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 22:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NLIST. We have List of football club nicknames in the United Kingdom and deleting this one would be an instance of systemic bias. The inclusion criteria should be made clear though. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That list also completely fails LISTN Spiderone 22:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 16:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per the previous AFD consensuses. Not notable, completely unsourced, and just indiscriminate, unencyclopedic information. Which is also my view on the UK one. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But of couse, like always that one doesn't get nominated for afd, while ours does. If that is not systemic bias I do not know what is. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you nominate the UK one for AFD, I will vote delete on it too. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that other list is now up for deletion, see here. @Ludost Mlačani: @Joseph2302: Spiderone 11:45, 6 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) 01:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Fire[edit]

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

I am proposing this article to be deleted for the following reasons:

No significant importance of fire
Very minor impact, only 2 structures got destroyed and nothing else, no injuries or deaths
Poorly written article. There is an empty section, and an unneeded "see also" section

I say we should delete this article as not notable a gd fan (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as proposer a gd fan (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this did generate news and it did impact 8,000+ Acres, it does not appear to meet WP:EVENT as there is no lasting impact. Jeepday (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of lasting impact; WP:NOTNEWS Spiderone 22:21, 7 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. Nominator had several AFDs in a row which seem to be very contested. Geschichte (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Kanes Weisman[edit]

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

While the article means well and she may have been instrumental in starting certain groups and institutions, Kanes-Weisman does not meet WP:N, WP:GNG, or WP:SIGCOV. Dr42 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep A cursory search shows she has a book and plenty of reviews to meet NAUTHOR, some of which I’ve begun adding to the entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Doing a WP:BEFORE search reveals a number of hits like [9]a full length feature in the Suffolk Times, [10] a critique of one of her books in the Journal of American History, [11] a review of her book by the American Psychological Association. There are other reviews and critiques as well. And a number of profiles with universities and feminist organizations. The smaller hits may only give her a nod or acknowledgement but put it with the media articles and bigger reviews, critiques and journal entries written about her work as an author and activist and it does pass WP:N requirements. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - I'm not understanding why this was nominated for deletion. She is clearly a notable architect, writer, educator, passing WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR, and also clearly passes WP:NPROF due to the fact that she's a full professor & co-founder of several academic programs, and held a named, endowed position, George A. Miller Endowment professorship at U of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.[12] A 5-minute search on Google shows these two Awards: Public Servant of the Year [13], NFWFWF Founders Award [14] and several reviews of her books: “Discrimination by Design” [15], [16], [17], [18], and reviews of a different book, “The Sex of Architecture” [19]. Just because an article is short or a stub is not a valid rationalle for deletion. There is a wealth of SIGCOV in RS's on her that supports her notability. The nomination was done without doing a proper WP:BEFORE search. Netherzone (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. She authored a widely reviewed book and edited another reviewed volume. I've added multiple scholarly reviews. She helped found notable academic programs (i.e. Women's School of Planning and Architecture) and has an entry on Encyclopedia.com that can be used to help expand this article. I recommend withdrawing this nomination and performing a more through WP:BEFORE in the future. TJMSmith (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, following the addition of many new sources. Possibly (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Its snowing in here... --Theredproject (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All this snow, just in time for the holidays. Gamaliel (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:AUTHOR case is actually still a little weak despite the many reviews because there's only one authored book (and one co-edited volume) but I think there's enough coverage of her to avoid WP:BIO1E for the book and to make a solid case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 3 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) 01:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Renev[edit]

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

Article with one sentence about a non-notable individual with no sources and zero references or citations. Renev fails WP:N, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG. Dr42 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as page creator. Meets WP:NCYC, so nominator's "non-notable individual" is his/her opinion, not true according to established policy. Kevin McE (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. As I don't see the relevance, I will also remove from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Motorsport A7V2 (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep found enough coverage in Russian - 1, 2, 3, 4 and more. Meets WP:NCYC. Less Unless (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, which NSPORT is based on. Only the Vesti article listed above is significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 11:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So there is significant coverage. How then do you argue, against your own evidence, that it fails WP:GNG? Kevin McE (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources, which hasn't been demonstrated here yet. You are not notable just because a newspaper covers you once. SportingFlyer T·C 13:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't "require" multiple sources: it says that they are "generally expected". The linked essay (admittedly only an essay, but linked from within the guideline, and therefore of some status) states, "While references are always needed for verifiability, references are not always needed to establish notability. Wikipedia has criteria for what is called "presumed notability". Examples of established criteria for presumed notability include ... WP:ATHLETE establishes criteria for presumed notability for athletes in various sports." Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, He clearly passes WP:NCYC for competing in a Grand Tour and a Monument, as well as riding at the World Tour level for four years. Seacactus 13 (talk)

WP:SPORTCRIT clearly spells out that the guideline is based on the assumption WP:GNG-qualifying coverage exists. I can't find any additional significant coverage of him apart from that one article. Passing the SNG doesn't matter - it's just a presumption that WP:GNG will be passed, and as far as I can tell, he does not - and as noted, multiple sources are expected. I don't see why he would be exempt - why not just come up with another source? SportingFlyer T·C 23:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added two and Less Unless posted four above.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's good the article has inline citations now, but the two you added were directory listings and only one of the four Less Unless posted above are significant coverage, so we're still at one source for the purposes of WP:GNG. Are there any other articles written directly about him? SportingFlyer T·C 00:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Six sources is plenty, this is nearly always considered more than enough. I am not sure what your expectation is. It is enough for GNG, and easily meets not just one, but three guidelines of WP:NCYCLING: " A male cyclist is presumed notable if he: Has competed in a UCI World Tour; Has competed in a Grand Tour or Monument; Has competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup;" He competed at World Tour level, in a Grand Tour, Monuments and the UCI World Championships. In 2011 alone, he competed in nine UCI WorldTour events, only one is enough for inclusion. There has never been an issue with notability for someone who has done these things. Competing at such a level in basically every other sport is also always enough to meet GNG, so please explain to me as to why would this be any different. Seacactus 13 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions.
SSSB (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Easily passes WP:NCYCLING, competed at highest level. Number of current sources is at all not an indication of notability. Also competed in a Grand Tour, which clearly meets notability guidelines. Also note that the nom has quite a history of nominating articles that are speedily kept. Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rode in the Vuelta a Espana, so passes WP:NCYC, as well as riding for Astana. Less Unless has found coverage in Russian, and I suspect there's also coverage in Kazakh too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:33, 7 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. One of several AFDs that seems to have been done too hastily. Geschichte (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Natus-Šalamounová[edit]

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

Painter and proefssor with one print in a National Gallery. Not notable for our standards. Natus-Šalamounová does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Dr42 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing many mentions in Czech, and there is the museum collection, so GNG is likely met. Seeing as the nominator does not seem to do WP:BEFORE and has made two incorrect AfD nominations of notable artists today, I don't put much faith in this nomination.Possibly (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG as I'm getting enough hits on Google, news and books to establish that the notability of this illustrator exists even though the article needs improvement - WP:NEXIST (If I could read/translate Czech I'd improve it.) She is in the collection of the National Gallery of Art which also speaks to her notability, as they don't collect garbage art. ;) Netherzone (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of Czech-language sources; meets WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "One print in a National Gallery" doesn't really capture the importance of being in the National Gallery of Art. — Toughpigs (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RDM (film director)[edit]

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

Not a notable director who does not satisfy either WP:DIRECTOR or WP:GNG. Has directed a Tamil film which is yet to come out. A cut-and-dried case of WP:TOOSOON. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No support for WP:DIRECTOR Kolma8 (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this is WP:TOOSOON at best. Could also be redirected to Kavalthurai Ungal Nanban Spiderone 23:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callision[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. The article does cite one potentially usable review, which seems to be a decent independent source; however, it is quite brief, and the multiple high-quality sources required to satisfy NCORP do not appear to exist. – Teratix ₵ 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable company with no supporting valid sources. Some are PR. Google news did not bring up anything good. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with Expertwikiguy, not finding anything notable on google news, No obvious meeting of WP:N Jeepday (talk) 15:12, 7 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) 01:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fely Acuna[edit]

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

The article is only sourced to IMDb which is not a reliable source. There is no evidence that she meets actress notability guidelines, nothing shows that any of her roles were in notable productions John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about her. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked and don't find anything either/ Jeepday (talk) 18:09, 7 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) 01:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bujar Spahiu[edit]

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

Spahiu does not seem to be notable and if he could be considered notable, it is for one event arguably. Interested in the discussion. Dr42 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator does not appear to have done WP:BEFORE; a regular Google search for his name finds what looks like plenty of news coverage, most in languages I don't read. But more generally, I think grand muftis (like say Catholic archbishops) are a high enough level to be automatically notable. One of a set of bad nominations by the same nominator. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tend to agree that the highest ranking Muslim official (in a Muslim-majority country, i.e. definitely not occupying a marginal position) is probably an automatic pass. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This Muslim scholar is the Grand Mufti of Albania and the chairman of the Sunni Muslim Community of Albania. I'd have to say he is definitely notable by WP standards. Same nominator has put up notable several artists/architects for deletion without doing a BEFORE search; suggest they read notability criteria for several fields in advance of making noms in the future. Netherzone (talk) 00:56, 4 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dr42 (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placido Campolo[edit]

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

Lacks WP:GNG and WP:N Dr42 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Searched Google/Archive.org and could not find any notable notice about this painter. Kolma8 (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria for WP:NARTIST as he is listed in an international dictionary/encyclopedia of artist, Oxford Art Online, Benezit Dictionary of Artists.[20]. Nominator, please consider doing a WP:BEFORE search prior to nominating, as it's considered best practice. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Netherzone, he is in Benezit, and on Internet Archive he is found in many Italian sources on Messina. WP:NEXIST applies. Just two examples are a critical biographical entry, [21] and a few sentences in a general history on painting in Italy[22]. Curiocurio (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many results available in Google Books. Has been dead for 200+ years and they are still writing about him.Possibly (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another in-depth book source to go with Curiocurio's towards WP:GNG: [23]. Part of a recent string of bad nominations by the nominator. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Dictionary of Painters and Engravers linked above is legit. There's also The History of Painting in Italy by Lanzi and Roscoe (1847). — Toughpigs (talk) 06:42, 4 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) 01:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Louis Reymond[edit]

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

Not notable. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one contributor, who contributed only once. Kolma8 (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for deletion. Geschichte (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see GNG notability arising from any of the sources or content in the article. I'm also not seeing citations for WP:NPROF, nor any of the other criteria. I'm not able to confidently search in French or Arabic, but I think that at the very least WP:TNT applies here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Russ Woodroofe. This academic is not even close to passing NPROF. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 8 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) 01:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cabernet, California[edit]

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

No GNIS entry, not on topos, and I can only get newspapers.com hits for wine, no matter what search terms I use. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note to any closer tempted to relist: look at the many, many, many other AFDs that are related to the same author using the same sources (GNIS/Durham - GNIS is a bad source, Durham might be a good source but the person who created these articles is simply ignoring how Durham describes them, e.g., listing sidings and summits as settlements) to create WP:GEOLAND failing articles during the same period in 2009 and ask whether this really needs another week. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Mass-producer negligently misrepresented the source: Durham says under the entry for McFarland: "Darling (p. 19) listed a place called Cabernet located 6 miles located along Souther Pacific Railroad", not that it is a notable community or settlement. Reywas92^Talk 00:33, 9 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) 01:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devils Elbow, California[edit]

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

Gudde refers to the name as "An unidentified place, listed in the State Library Roster," and while there are various legal references to a place by this name, it is on/near to the San Joaquin River, which is a long ways south. As soon as I put Colusa County into the mix, I get nothing but clickbait, false hits, and GNIS itself. The name doesn't appear on topos until the mid 1960s, and it initially sits next to a hairpin curve in the road before migrating west a short ways. No buildings, and aerials all show typical sparse Sierra forest, and nothing else. It's not at all clear what's going on here, but it looks like some kind of mistake in mapping. Mangoe (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my educated guess is that someone named the hairpin turn the Devil's Elbow (which is down a gated private dirt road to nowhere) and it got picked up upstream and eventually made its way into the GNIS database, which digitised old topo maps. I can't find nothing on it, and we've had road intersections come through these parts before. SportingFlyer T·C 16:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No idea what this is. A newspapers.com search turned up a restaurant in Fresno, a road curve or river bend in Plumas County, and a road in Mendocino County. I can't find anything about a feature in Colusa County. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The Devils Elbows in Durham are not in Colusa County. Map obviously shows it isn't a community. Reywas92^Talk 00:29, 9 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) 01:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzhak of Volozhin[edit]

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

Some brief mentions, not a single in-depth source. Searches did not turn up anything in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF #6 as the dean of a major yeshiva (known as the "Mother of all yeshivas"). Yoninah (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His position as head of the yeshiva is a strong claim of notability and the coverage about him in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia and in the book Wolozyn; sefer shel ha-ir-shel yeshivat Ets Hayim, sources already in the article, is the kind of in-depth coverage that satisfies the notability standard for a Lithuanian rabbi who flourished 200 years ago. Alansohn (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Nominator please note historical Jewish figures may not appear in the typical English language sources. For this reason please avoid nominating articles for deletion on such subjects.brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I may be biased as the guy who made this article, I do believe it warrants staying due to the above mentioned reasons. He is an important figure in the Misgnadic/Yeshivish world. Bgrus22 (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Bearas (talk) 07:37, 5 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) 01:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debra J. Fisher[edit]

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

A WP:BLP of a TV writer and producer, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2006. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing independent and in-depth about her. In addition to some social media, fan, and listings sites, the best I found was this from AllMovie, this from Metacritic, and this promotion for an upcoming series, Ginny & Georgia, on Netflix. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not find anything significant beyond the imdb, and that is not enough to meet notablity. Jeepday (talk) 18:27, 7 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) 01:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan (rapper and afrobeats musician)[edit]

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

Covert UPE article for a non notable musician who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO & generally lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The article creator is currently ”walling” as they are creating non notable articles and linking them altogether. Subject of the article indeed got a nomination, but this was from a very non notable award show. Almost all sources used in the article are primary sources and the ones which are reliable are mere announcements. Celestina007 (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hello my fellow editors, I hope to plead my case for this article not to be deleted, I may not be as experienced as other editors but I believe I gathered enough valid references and information for this article. Citing WP:MUSIC and stipulated by Wikipedia Guidelines this musician references are independent from the artist and they are reputable news sources in Nigeria. The award he was nominated for has been ongoing for 8 years, the same award show has been won by other notable Nigerian musicians who have verifiable articles up on Wikipedia. A Google search of the musician 'Sultan Baby Shark' or Sultan Afroboy' brings relevant hits, I refer to this articles WP:LOTSOFGHITS WP:GOOGLEHITS WP:GHITS. I therefore believe this article is worthy enough to be on and remain in the Wikipedia space. I also politely recommend the article be 'Disambiguate' with the term 'Sultan' as other articles titled Sultan. I hope this article is judged kindly and fairly. I am also citing the articles WP:CARES WP:FAME WP:LOCAL WP:NOTIMELIMIT to support the article to be kept on Wikipedia for relevance. Owpj777 (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Owpj777 (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having google hits in unreliable sources is of no use to GNG as GNG requires hits in reliable sources, see WP:RS which subject of your article doesn’t possess hence isn’t worthy of a standalone. Can you provide us with any three solid reliable sources that discusses subject of your article with in-depth significant coverage as required by GNG? or show us what criterion from MUSICBIO he fulfills? Being nominated once in a non notable award show doesn’t count. Furthermore why haven’t you declared your obvious paid/status? Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The musician appears in reliable news sources in Nigeria, that is Vanguard Newspaper, The Sun Newspaper and The Nation newspaper, he is also referenced in other national daily articles. I shall cite WP:MUSIC [as per s.1 of criteria for musicians] and [as per s.11 of criteria for musicians] for relevance. The nomination for the award show may not be major but in the locality and considering the notable musicians to have won it and appeared on the show, it is only fair to consider it as a local and notable award show. As I mentioned before in the other talk discussion I sincerely point out that I am not being paid for the article, I am only interested in editing and putting up new articles for fast rising musicians in Afrobeats genre. I asked politely that this article be considered with kindness and fairness. Thank you.Owpj777 (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dear Owpj777, you can't vote twice. Also, most of your linked Wikipedia pages above (WP:LOTSOFGHITS, WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:CARES, WP:FAME, etc.) actually work against Sultan's article, and quite strongly. Thanks for joining Wikipedia as a new editor, but take the opportunity to learn that this is an encyclopedia in which people/things must qualify for inclusion and to learn how the various notability guidelines work. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good luck to the kid as he gets started, but I will be friendly and conclude it is too soon for now. The so-called "reliable" sources cited by Owpj777 are universally reprints of promotional materials from the singer's management, which you can see through the regular use of "rising" and other puffery. All media mentions of the Top Naija Music awards follow the same pattern. Sultan's only media coverage is unreliable reprinted press releases and the usual streaming services. He has not been covered in reliable and significant media, which is necessary for Wikipedia. He can be promoted elsewhere. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mostly a promotional article about a little-known musician, filled with unsourced information and pointless trivia. Delete, as I can't imagine there is anywhere we could redirect this to. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost all the sources provided are just music promo , fail Wikipedia Notability Samat lib (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to say thank you to all the editors that have so far voted, I appreciate your thoughts. I am a rookie in this but I hope to continue getting better and do more write up on refined articles. It would sadden me that the Sultan article is deleted because I put effort into it but I understand the right decision would be taken for Wikipedia. Once again thank you all!Owpj777 (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your maturity. Should probably mention that, since you are new, AfDs aren't votes. The results are based on how effective everybody's opinion is, rather than how much everybody suggested a certain method. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to the nom, there is actually reasonable good of coverage in WP:RS. According to our articles, The Sun (Nigeria) is the highest selling newspaper in Nigeria and The Nation (Nigeria) is the second-most. Both have devoted entire articles to the current subject - it does not seem reasonable to dismiss them as "mere announcements" (I am not sure where this distinction is based upon - WP:GNG only talks about "coverage"). Unless this issue is addressed directly, I think there is a good case that WP:GNG is met. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron, both of them are generally considered reliable but the problem is the the Sun source you made mention of is a blatant sponsored post that doesn’t even satisfy WP:SIGCOV & the The Nation source is a combination of an announcement and a sponsored post without in-depth significant coverage. So in summary both sources are of no value to WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, do you have any evidence that either newspaper accepts paid articles? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By mere reading the sources you’d observe they are promotional in nature. Both sources use similar wordings when describing the subject which is consistent with pr sponsored posts, coupled with the fact that they both fall short of WP:SIGCOV this is a slam dunk GNG fail. If you can’t see or understand that then there isn’t much I can say other than let the AFD run it’s course. Celestina007 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a difference between a reliable source and a reliable story that appears in that source. Those Nigerian papers might be reliable in other areas, but they are not for music announcements. For example, if The Sun were truly objective in its coverage of young Sultan, it would not have to call him "fast rising" just like his promoter did. Vanguard repeated the same language. That's not reliable journalism. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520, exactly my point & you couldn’t have said it/explained it any better. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Article creator has now been blocked for possible covert UPE which I suspected was the case right from the very beginning. Celestina007 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the UPE suspected? Foxnpichu (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Foxnpichu, do you mind me sending you a private email? Celestina007 (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry, I don’t give my email out for security reasons. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Foxnpichu, a relatively wise decision, but unfortunately things as such are best discussed off-wiki and per beans I do not want to post how I suspected UPE was at play here as I do not want anyone knowing my tricks and evading scrutiny, I hope you understand my catch-22 scenario. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understandable. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep could be notable due to having nominated for an award and probably having charted in his own country, but this needs some research as it is not mentioned. Peter303x (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Naija Music awards is a non notable award show & no he hasn’t charted in Nigeria, so I’m not so sure I understand what you are on about? Also keeping in mind that he satisfies absolutely no criterion from both WP:MUSICBIO & WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requirement #8 at WP:MUSICBIO says a nomination for a major award helps with notability. There are a lot of award "ceremonies" out there that hand out nominations for a fee, are run by media companies for publicity purposes, or are simply unknown. This singer's nomination is surely from one of those. I just honored young Sultan by nominating him for a prestigious Doomsdayer520 Award too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think there are enough good arguments in favor of deleting. Kolma8 (talk) 22:37, 9 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) 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Rüegg[edit]

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

Rüegg does not seem to meet WP:N and the article may be WP:SISP as it reads like a resumé or cv. Dr42 (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly an uncredited translation of de:Markus Rüegg, by an editor with the same username. A search turned up one additional item from the University of Basel website, but nothing independent and in-depth. German WP has no article on the Rudolf-Bing-Preis, which Rüegg won in 2000. A respectable academic, but no sign of passing WP:NPROF, WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. One of a string of bad nominations by the same nominator, who in this case does not even consider the correct notability criterion (WP:PROF not WP:GNG). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This academic passes notability requirements for WP:NPROF, the article could be improved but should not be deleted. Netherzone (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:40, 4 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) 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta Bajpai[edit]

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

Haven't done any significant roles or works. Fails WP:NACTOR - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC Spiderone 19:06, 9 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dr42 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Auder[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV, and may be WP:SPIP Dr42 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn by nominator per discussion below. Dr42 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am seeing many good exhibitions: MoMA (five times), the Stedeijk Museum and he was also in the 2014 Whitney Biennial. There is at least one collection. There are lots of reviews and essays on his work.Possibly (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect the Biennal would qualify him as notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This publication has some good biographic material on his work that will be helpful for article development.[24] Netherzone (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Additional comment to nom: @Dr42: would you consider withdrawing your nomination? I'm finding many reviews and magazine/journal articles online by notable authors, that I'm quite surprised that this was put up for deletion. There are so many excellent sources available! Netherzone (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about withdrawing the nom. There clearly a lot of SIGCOV out there, as well as the museum collection and the significant shows. Possibly (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw. Dr42 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This artist was very well known in the 80s and 90s - many international exhibitions and film screenings. I will see if I can find other collections and add them to the article (which needs improvement.) Netherzone (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added one collection, which with the Whitney Biennial means he meets WP:NARTIST.Possibly (talk) 17:07, 3 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) 01:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Tripathi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. A case of probable WP:TOOSOON - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a cut-and dried case of WP:TOOSOON. She has done only one film and has received some coverage for the same. The sources cited in the article are interviews and mentions with no wide coverage. A Google search of her does not bring up anything better. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Umakant here Spiderone 19:08, 9 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 Puerto Rico Islanders. Missvain (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Populoso[edit]

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

Whilst an article being here for almost 14 years is usually a strong indicator of notability, I'm not seeing that here. This fails WP:GNG and just about any other applicable guideline. Spiderone 22:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Redirect to parent article about the team as a last resort. Giant Snowman 18:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Puerto_Rico_Islanders. I have found this and this to back it up.Less Unless (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG no matter how you slice it. Mercy11 (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Puerto_Rico_Islanders. On its own, fails WP:GNG. Elms^super 14:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Islanders team article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 3 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) 01:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Greenfield[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Alleged national team stats unsourced. --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Claims to notability not verified. Giant Snowman 12:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above; if he was ever capped then it would be shown here and here Spiderone 19:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure, unless someone can prove the claimed national team appearances are real. Number 5 7 12:53, 9 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) 01:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sedwell, California[edit]

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treves, California, this is going to be a bundled nomination of railroad features falsely listed as communities of Kern County, California.

Sedwell has no GNIS entry, does not appear on the topos, is only sourced to a vague entry in Durham, and has no meaningful newspapers.com hits, no matter how I arrange the search terms. I did find one Gbook hit at [25] that references a Sedwell spur on the Southern Pacific. Without anything to really explain what this was, WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG are not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cable was clearly a siding, as shown on the topos. See this, which pretty clearly refers to Cable as a siding. Sidings are a type of railroad feature that fail WP:GNG.

Eric was also a siding, see [26]. The claim in the article that it had a population of 14 at the 2012 census was added in 2017 by an IP editor and is almost certainly vandalism. There was no 2012 census, I can find no record of this place in US Census department data, GNIS states that Eric is "historical", and all that's at the GNIS coordinates now is a highway overpass and some windmills. So yeah, it's incredibly unlikely this had a population of 14 in 2012, and it's almost certainly a WP:GEOLAND-failing railroad feature.

La Rose is also apparently some sort of railroad feature, although it's more obscure than the others. Topos show an undeveloped point on the railroad that is later replaced by a nondescript gravel pit. Nothing on newspapers.com. All I can find is this and this, which indicates that the site was some sort of railroad feature with neither a post office nor a telegraph office. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fram was also a siding, see [27]. And yes, these all appear to be the work of a single editor. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Pure vandalism without evidence of significant coverage or that they're even actual communities. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per Reywas92. Note to closer: there's hundreds more articles like this created by the same editor, all with the same problems (micro-stubs mass-created based on unreliable sources/misreading of possibly-reliable sources). All of them fail WP:GEOLAND. Relisting this discussion, in the absence of any keep votes, is just going to lead to AFD getting clogged up with hundreds of these AFD discussions. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 8 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) 01:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Cut, California[edit]

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

Literal railroad cut, not a community. See this. Couple sentences here. This appears to be referring to a nearby road, maybe not the cut itself. There's a few similar things: passing mentions as a landmark, or brief references to something occurring there. WP:GEOLAND is not met, and I'm not convinced the coverage quite rises to meet WP:GNG, although others may disagree. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-producer negligently misrepresented the source: Durham says under the entry for Bena: "California (1891) map shows a place called Sand Cut located along the railroad", not that it is a notable community or settlement. Reywas92^Talk 00:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails GEOLAND and was never a community Spiderone 14:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I highly suggest someone open up a sockpuppet investigation related to the comments below. Missvain (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Bowles (author)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/David Bowles (author)

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

Subject fails the standards laid out in WP:AUTHOR for notability, the only pages that link to the article are for various awards which do not themselves confer notability, and DignidadLiteraria, a notable project but not one which inherently implies notability on the part of it's creators. Additionally, the page seems to mostly be edited by two individuals one of whom has identified herself as a professional colleague of the subject and one who, based on their edit history, may be the subject himself. MichiganCharms (talk) 05:05, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

I oppose this AfD attempt. We should keep the article. There has been a concerted, orchestrated attack on the subject since his Twitter threads of December 1 and 2, 2020. This is simply another attempt at attacking him, by an editor who is not active on Wikipedia. However, I will add sources to address MichiganCharms purported issues with the article. Amycummins (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, and of course bowing to any proof that WP:SIGCOV can be found demonstrating notability, the above editor appears to be a close professional colleague of the subject. See 1 and 2. Her contributions may well violate WP:COI. -MichiganCharms (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this AfD attempt. Author is notable advocate for diverse voices in children's literature. ^[1]^[2]^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katytanis (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep David Bowles is an award-winning author of books for young people. He is the subject of assignments in schools. It would be a disservice to education to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.48.105 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that, with the exception of minor edits and bot edits, only one user actively edits this page -- User:Amycummins, who seems to be David Bowles himself, possibly using a colleague's name or account -- demonstrates its non-notability. The only other major editor of the article, User: RGVLiterature, is likewise a colleague, RGVLiterature no doubt referring to the UT Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Literature department. This person seems obsessed with attention, as evidenced by his baffling inclusion of a link to his (also self-maintained) IMDb page, which lists a pilot he's announced, a special thanks credit on a seven-minute short from seven years ago, and an appearance on a single episode of a TV show from six years ago. Until this develops into a Jessica Krug scenario, this article is not notable. —Psammeticus (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I usually don't advocate for blowing up articles--I think they can just, you know, be edited--but there are too many red flags with this one: the COI, the many non-RS or dead links, the overly promotional tone. But there are some good refs, and I think that he has a weak case for notability. Caro7200 (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have no connection to this author, though I am a student of literature for children at Hugo House in Seattle. This author is a very well-published, award-winning author. This article should not be deleted. SimonBean101 (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Simonbean101 (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)^[4][reply]

Keep - I am a children's book writer and follow David Bowles on social media channels. He is a prolific, award-winning author who has a strong voice in the larger writing community. Attempts to take down this article are politically and ideologically-driven, especially given the timing of this request in relation to David's recent discussion of increasing diversity within public school curriculum. This article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinepritchard (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC) — Carolinepritchard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Yes, there were issues with COI, I believe. But my recents edits should have fixed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libiabrenda (talk • Libiabrenda (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)contribs) 19:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC) — Libiabrenda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment All keep votes thus far have come from accounts with no edit histories before today or from an account engaged in COI. - MichiganCharms (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have no professional links or association with David Bowles, but feel that he is certainly significant enough for a Wikipedia page. In addition to his numerous awards, he's well-regarded by his peers. See Frederick Luis Aldama, "Interventions: An Interview With David Bowles," American Book Review, volume 41, Number 6, September/October 2020; Carla Espana & Luz Yadira Herrera, "Translanguaging Literacies," in Translanguaging and Transformative Teaching for Emergent Bilingual Students, Routledge, Nov. 26, 2020; Cathryn Merla-Watson, "Latinofuturism," in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature, Oxford UP, 2019; Caroline Dodds Pennock, "Aztecs Abroad? Uncovering the Early Indigenous Atlantic," American Historical Review, volume 125, issue 3, June 2020; Stephanie Alvarez, Amanda Tovar, and Mariana Alessandri, Borderlands, volume 24, spring 2020; among others. I can keep going. Do I need to? - Johnjnevins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC) — Johnjnevins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment There is an increasing number of single purpose accounts being created for the sole purpose of voting in favor of keeping this article. The above user created their account at 22:50 and within 19 minutes had assembled a detailed bibliography for a random academic they do not know. The fact that nobody besides recently-created, SPA are voting "keep" is significant. (In interest of disclosure, I have deleted a previous comment that I felt was too sarcastic and did not further the discussion.) -Psammeticus (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the other issues aside the bar for this article is WP:AUTHOR and given all the effort to keep the article, there is no indication that that bar of WP:AUTHOR is met. Jeepday (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's difficult to AGF when the proponents for deletion discount a significant body of widely-cited and award-winning literature, backed up with third party reported social activism, as not meeting WP:AUTHOR. It is met. On another channel it would be difficult to refrain from calling this proposal malicious and absurd. BarryNorton (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the article is definitely has some exageration and self-promotion, he's likely to meet WP;NAUTHOR by having created notable works, for example They Call Me Güero which has received multiple reviews[28][29][30] and (unless the list is a work of fiction itself) multiple recognition. Article needs a clean-up and probable monitoring, not deletion. Sionk (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author has written almost the entire WikiPedia page himself and has, on his Twitter account, asked colleagues to stand up and help save the page from "deletion." Not long after, a large number of single-use accounts has been created to write that his awards constitute "notoriety." Misuse, on the part of the author, to self-promote and attempts to smear anyone who is trying to delete the article as "trolls" on his Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanmachien (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 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) 01:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Footballdatabase.eu[edit]

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

Non-notable website, I don't see any claim to significance. BEFORE turned up a handful of news articles and books that cited it for stats, but no in-depth coverage that I could find. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a very useful website for me as a fan of football stats but, unfortunately, fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG Spiderone 16:05, 4 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) 01:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Light in the Dark (film)[edit]

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

Fails GNG, fails WP:NFO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as mentioned, it fails all 5 criteria of film notability guidelines. I only managed to find a few reviews online but they weren't by anyone notable. Additionally, I haven't managed to find much information about the film in general; the article is also lacking in details, reliable sources and information. Eyebeller (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I did add some reviews. I'm not terribly familiar with Nigeria sourcing, but I'm aware that not all of them are online and not all of the news sources have extremely polished sources. I don't mean that as an insult, just something that I've noticed about African news sources that aren't hugely major presses. It was also apparently one of the highest grossing Nigerian films of all time per this page and was one of the top 20 grossing movies for the weak of release, which implies that there are almost certainly more sources out there that aren't online. It's not a super solid keep, so I won't contest too hard if it's deleted. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are now enough secondary sources added to the article as described above for a pass of WP:GNG and it also has a major claim of significance as one of the highest grossing Nigerian films, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not sourcing, it's notability. The film, as Eyebeller points out above, fails NFO - the film notability guideline. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline, which provides a definition of notability applicable to any topic, is all about sources, so there's no distinction between the availability of suitable sources and notability. And WP:NFO is not the film notability guideline, but a guide to what to do with articles about films when it is difficult to find sources online that meet the GNG. If such sources have been found then NFO is irrelevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the rewrite, it doesn't seem to hold up to notability standards. It was the highest money-making film in the country for a week? Not sure that warrants a whole article, maybe a list somewhere with this film in it... Oaktree b (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: it is one of the highest grossing Nigerian films of all time as per the link provided by Reader of the Pack above, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After digging more on www.ceanigeria.com found that the movie did not make it on any top grossing movies list in 2019, about 11K ppl watched it first 4 wks after release in the theaters across Nigeria. There are only 19 IMDB ratings for the movie, which is very very weak, meaning the movie is not really that notable. Kolma8 (talk) 18:17, 3 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. Happy to draftify if someone wants it. Let me know. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Korpilampi[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD and BEFORE showed nothing that meets RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article provides no indication of notability. // Timothy :: talk 18:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 18:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 18:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article in Finnish seems to have some sources? I don't read Finnish though. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll give it a go. Korpilampi is a bit of an iconic one, there should be decent enough references (in addition to whatever the Finnish wiki has). I agree, though, that as it stands, the article does make a poor fist of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was already half way into improving and expanding the article, when my browser crashed and I seem to have lost the work irretrievably. :( That said, I did discover that finding decent sources wasn't quite as easy as I first thought, so I might just have to let this one go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of references on the Finnish page - have these been looked at? SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are dead. I only found one good article on the hotel that wasn't a directory listing, but it has an important place in Finnish political history, so may well be notable if Finnish archives are searched. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - there's fair reason to believe that this topic is notable but the article does not demonstrate that at all. I would suggest sending to draft space so that a user with good experience of using Finnish sources can work on it Spiderone 08:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If this does get draftified (or kept), I undertake to add whatever decent sources I could find, and generally rework it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only hint of significant coverage I was able to find is about events taking place at this venue, not about the hotel itself. I don't think there's ever been a consensus that venues WP:INHERIT notability from notable events held there. The remaining coverage is simply what you'd expect for any hotel (booking sites, etc.) Draftifying is only appropriate if there is a reasonable likelihood of improvement which I don't see here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and no significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:56, 8 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alico, California[edit]

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

Actually the site of a mining spur: searching turned up a reference to "the old railroad siding of Alico" and another reference to Alico as a name for the California Alkali Co. Topos and aerials show no structures at the site; there's no evidence for an actual settlement, though one reference claims a mining camp. Mangoe (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Searching newspapers.com for "Alico Inyo" was not fruitful in part because "Alice" seems to sometimes scan as "Alico". GBooks has references for Alico being a railroad station, so WP:STATION applies. As this location was never legally recognized and has almost no coverage, trivial or not, #1 and #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met. Cxbrx (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; clearly never a settlement Spiderone 14:48, 8 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 this early (or at least early for the latest relist) to hopefully put an end to ongoing disruption related to this series of articles. Agreement seems to have been reached that there are already three separate articles – Mohun Bagan A.C. and ATK (football club) for the original clubs and ATK Mohun Bagan FC for the merged club – and that this is a copy/paste duplicate. Number 5 7 19:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohun Bagan[edit]

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

This page is clone page of an already existing protected page with proper templates and information. So it is preferable to delete this page to prevent misguidance.Debankan Mullick (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Mohun Bagan A.C.. Giant Snowman 21:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the ATK-Mohun Bagan merged club technically different than Mohun Bagan A.C., MLS-style? SportingFlyer T·C 21:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is an entirely different club legally, yes. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be two articles, then. SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reopen that discussion but this has been done many, many times and most times doesn't get many responses beyond GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) and Mohun Bagan fans who don't want a separate page. The conversations eventually result in "no consensus". Reason I have taken a break recently. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have said multiple times that there should be three separate articles, on the two old clubs and the new merged club. This is standard - see Dagenham F.C. + Redbridge Forest F.C. = Dagenham & Redbridge F.C. as one example. However, this AFD is not the place for such a discussion I don't think. Giant Snowman 09:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? We now have three articles, and the FC Cincinnati argument played out over AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: admittedly I am not up to speed on the club(s) involed, but (as far as I can see) we currently have three separate articles, which seems to be what you think we should have, but above you have !voted to turn one into a redirect to another, which would leave us with only two articles. Am I misunderstanding.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude and SportingFlyer: because this is somebody overwriting a long established redirect to one of the old articles. The new entity is called ATK Mohun Bagan / ATK Mohun Bagan F.C. and any new article needs to be located there. Giant Snowman 12:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense - I hadn't checked the history of the article under discussion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can just restore the previous versions of ATK Mohun Bagan FC. This article under discussion is inappropriately copy-pasted from the ATK Mohun Bagan FC. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 06:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be the correct answer here. SportingFlyer T·C 07:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The merged club is different than the old club, so three articles are warranted in this case, though we may need to move the title once this is finished. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Its no doubt/confusion that MB = MBAC and not to be confused with ATKMB. Its commonly called mohun bagan instead of mb athletic club. So, revert it to previous revision where it was a redirect. Bringing ATKMB here is totally unnecessary, and it should have a separate discussion. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 06:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an inappropriate copy-paste, Restore ATK Mohun Bagan FC from a redirect to an article, and then Redirect to ATK Mohun Bagan FC. It's admittedly a bit confusing, but this seems to be the correct answer, as this page has been created due to an edit war at that article resulting from a really poor merge discussion back in September. This AfD would overturn that merge discussion, but I strongly believe this is the correct answer, having read the discussions on the Mohun Bagan A.C talk page, and not having any vested interest in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 07:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep all the information of the page. But change the title "Mohun Bagan" to "ATK Mohun Bagan" to resolve the ambiguity.

1. To resolve this ambiguity, please take all the information from here and paste that in the page 'ATK Mohun Bagan, which is now a redirected page. And remove the redirected tag from the "ATK Mohun Bagan" Page.

2. Redirect this page to Mohun Bagan AC page. This is because this page titled as "Mohun Bagan", was created in 22 May, 2005, but the new team ATK Mohun Bagan created in 1 June, 2020.(This may create ambiguity in future) Please do the above mentioned procedure as soon as possible to resolve the ambiguity. 171.51.131.53 (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SportingFlyer, this discussion, like always will be floated by fans of a rival club namely Shree Cement East Bengal. Like always, users like Arsenalfan and Saha will come up with excuses of it being a new entity altogether. Despite so many discussions, they seem to never learn and will always be bothered about Mohun Bagan's articles instead of Shree Cement's articles. There is no point of discussing if you have so many biased rival fans here. IAmPushpak (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note A few minutes ago, an editor moved the page from Mohun Bagan to Draft:ATK Mohun Bagan Football Club. I have asked the editor to undo the move until either this discussion closes or there is a consensus to allow the move in the middle of the discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Theshouvik has not done so already, I have reverted the move. There is a copy-and-paste of this at ATK Mohun Bagan Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which I will revert back to its most recent redirect version shortly. These reversions are purely procedural, had this AFD not been open, I probably wouldn't have done anything. Editor notified. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an inappropriate copy-paste and Restore redirect to Mohun Bagan A.C.— Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral notice: Information which may be relevant to this discussion has been added to one or more of the following talk pages since this AFD started: Talk:Mohun Bagan, Talk:ATK Mohun Bagan FC, and Talk:Mohun Bagan A.C.. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Locked redirect with history to ATK Mohun Bagan FC (I'm okay with Mohun Bagan AC as a 2nd choice). THere is some history that could be used to improve ATK Mohun Bagan FC or, should the editors of that page later decide to split off the "historical" team, use for a "new" page about the "old" team. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inappropriate copy-paste of Mohun Bagan AC.ThanksWhiteFalcon1 (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inappropriate copy-paste of Mohun Bagan AC and as we have already reached consensus that it is the continuation of Mohun Bagan club Debarghya89 (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true - it's pretty clear ATK Mohun Bagan is a new entity from the references on the talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we already have Mohun Bagan A.C. for the club, ATK (football club) for the old ATK club and are likely to end up with ATK Mohun Bagan FC for the new entity for the merged club. Don't require this one as well. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:06, 3 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) 01:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasota Metropolis FC[edit]

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

Plainly not notable, cannot find non-primary sources that can truly confirm notability. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - teams at this level are considered notable as they are eligible for the national cup. Article needs improving, not deleting. Sources are there, see e.g. this. Giant Snowman 12:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Am I mistaken thinking that WP:GNG applies here, because this fails WP:GNG? Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 04:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination says that you "cannot find non-primary sources", I have found one, and there are more out there. WP:BEFORE applies. Giant Snowman 10:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per :GiantSnowman.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per this similar AfD. Even if this topic were to fail GNG, I can't think of a case where we have deleted an article for a club that meets the WP:FOOTYN standard of being eligible for a national cup (and I am aware that FOOTYN is an out-dated essay). Spiderone 11:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of airports in Manitoba. Ping User:CambridgeBayWeather Missvain (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starbuck Airport[edit]

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

Non-notable club air strip, no assertion of notability, no scheduled airline service, no significant history, so fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability. Wtshymanski (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of airports in Manitoba. Not enough for a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 10:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of airports in Manitoba. Afd's are not required but I would like a notification that they have been redirected so that some material can be merged over. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A list of non-notable airports is itself non-notable and is a future candidate for deletion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not how list notability works in the slightest. See WP:LISTN. SportingFlyer T·C 21:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Seems like the most appropriate choice. Jeepday (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Harrin[edit]

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

After removing all bad and self-sourced claims, all advertising cruft, and all puffery, the article is left with a single, unsourced sentence, which does not demonstrate significant notability. This article feels like a self-built attempt at promotion. Jorm (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further, it's an orphan.--Jorm (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom.--Jorm (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is A Girl’s Guide to Project Management? Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Omniscientmoose42, It was/is a blog? It's uncertain. The marketing material seemed to indicate a book that could be purchased, which I expect was a combination series of blog posts. Jorm (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jorm, I went on the site [31], I'm guessing it's a generic blog/course site, I vote delete. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meh I created this article in October 2011‎, not sure why though. She won awards from magazines but I'm not sure if any of those are notable. Google news shows her quoted as an expert in her industry, but not much about her. So whatever, don't really care. Dream Focus 03:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and the basic tenets of WP:N. Also potential WP:COI. Dr42 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no conflict of interest. She was mentioned in a different AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2-plan_project_management_software so I went ahead and created a stub article for her listing all of her awards that seemed potentially notable at the time. I have nothing to do with the person at all, and don't care if the article is deleted or not. Dream Focus 18:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just surprised you still remember the process of creating the article. There are some articles I created 11 years ago or more that I had entirely forgotten I created them. This is one of the reasons I actually created 2 articles on Jack N. Gerard. The first I created was without his middle initial, back when he was head of the American Petroleum Institute, in eaither 2012 or before. I then created another article in 2018 shortly after he was called as a general authority seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So it was at least 6 years between the two article creations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some hits on Google News, but nothing that seems reliable/neutral/secondary (etc.). In the absence of sources, she doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. I don't know what SNGs to even begin to try to fit her under because of the complete lack of information. Samsmachado (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being a barely annotated guide to the internet. We should scrap all articles sources only to the subject's webpage. The really scarry thing is how many articles would be deleted if we did this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about her aside from an interview. Not sure if any of the awards she won are notable. I agree with Dream Focus that there's no WP:COI involved. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:54, 7 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) 01:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francisca Susano[edit]

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

Non-notable longevity claimant DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All coverage of Susano centres around her being 199+. IMHO this (not dying/being a supercentenarian) is "one event" and so the article should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. I would suggest a redirect to Longevity myths, but Susano doesn't yet meet the 130+ requirement to be listed in Modern Extreme Longevity Claims. Samsmachado (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete longevity claims are common, but only rarely well sourced, this one is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While there are sources coming from Philippine news outlets like CNN Philippines, Philippine Daily Inquirer, ABS-CBN News, SunStar and Manila Bulletin, it does not establish the claim as the Gerontology Research Group is still verifying this since 2016. — Emperork 🐋🐰 00:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about her aside from being one of the country's oldest persons, an indication of WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Sajovic[edit]

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

Well-intentioned product of an edit-a-thon. Sajovic has exhibited and published, which makes her a working artist and author, but does not make her notable in the Wikipedia sense of having attracted significant attention from the world at large. Between the cited sources and searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, JSTOR, Project MUSE, and ProQuest, there are: brief announcements, capsule artist/author bios (likely supplied by her), one primary source interview with little or no independent analysis by the interviewer,[32] and one award of unclear significance - written about only by the awarding organization.[33]

Tagged for notability for 4 years, hasn't been shown to meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an independent search found maybe two decent sources. I lean delete but await the opinion of others.Possibly (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Slovenian Wiki article a merely a paragraph big as well. Kolma8 (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Dr42 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - It seems that it is WP:TOOSOON for this interesting up-and-coming social practice artist/photographer. She has been awarded commissions and done projects at a few good institutions such as the Tate, so if some decent SIGCOV can be found, or a couple museum collections, I'm willing to change my !vote. If not, maybe in a few years her career will have developed enough to meet notability criteria for an article. Netherzone (talk) 20:26, 3 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.