The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulus Networks[edit]

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

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

Only sources are industry press and blogs. No in-depth features in independent organisations, therefore it's WP:NCORP fail Ch1p the chop (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ch1p the chop (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulus Networks was just acquired by NVidia: https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/04/nvidia-acquires-cumulus-networks/ - I am not sure how that helps or not the discussion. But the company did create a strong open source operating system for ethernet switches and was acquired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.8.251 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough coverage, including but not limited to Nvidia acquisition to merit NCORP — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Does the coverage of the Nvidia acquisition cover the subject in any significant depth? Or does the RS coverage focus on the acquisition itself?Ch1p the chop (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The WSJ article actually appears to be a blog which has a 404 error. I found an archived version here but it's an archive of a paywall. Perhaps we could consider merging as a WP:ATD? Ch1p the chop (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is reasonably wells-sourced, and meets the notability criteria for a company article in the English Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. What is independent or reliable is not significant and vice-versa. The only RS coverage is completely ordinary WP:MILL coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In particular, developing an open-source operating system for network switches and 32 percent of the Fortune 50 companies used the Cumulus Linux operating system in their data centers in 2017 jump out to me as going beyond WP:MILL. Finding reliable sources about Bay Area software startups is challenging, but not impossible: Googling reveals a TechCrunch article (from a staff writer, per WP:RSP) about the Nvidia acquisition. jp×g 06:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Good support by what appear to be reliable sources, and the company appears to be a leader in its field. Good coverage in news articles specific to this field.--Concertmusic (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has good sources but if you delete this one than take a look at the Networking companies of the United States category and delete half of them because they all have the same format.--TerrellTrevon (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I made some edits to replace primary sources with independent third party sources, and reworded the article to make it less promotional. Per WP:ORGIND, the included sources show that "unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it". As part of the coverage, research firm Gartner has recognized the company for its efforts to transition the data center industry to open source servers, away from hardware running on proprietary operating systems. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep needs improvement but enough coverage for WP:ORG KylieTastic (talk) 13:39, 11 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) 16:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Sabharwal[edit]

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

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

Not a notable actor and does not satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR. Has worked in a few television shows and received some coverage for the same. No notable roles played by him in multiple notable shows. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NACTOR is poorly fulfilled, I agree. The subject may be simply WP:TOOSOON, but notability is not temporary, whereas that can be questioned here... and the article is also quite short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreykai (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: I kind of thought it was WP:TOOSOON but what prompted me to create an article was his role Bin Kuch Kahe and at Dil Tuteya movie. But yes, even I had doubts while creating it! Palmsandbeaches (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per WP:NACTOR, and certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG. A redirect to the tv series article, Bin Kuch Kahe, would be acceptable.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I took a look at the sources, and none of them really rise to the level of in-depth coverage. I agree that this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Slashme (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bengal Lancers![edit]

The Bengal Lancers! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Really? an unmade film with one article about it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unreleased films can be notable but I'm not seeing any evidence that this one justifies an article Spiderone 18:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see notability around here. The Independent piece is great, and that's the only reliable source. IMDb and Youtube are not reliable of course, and the British Film Institute page is trivial. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added a few more pieces. I think with this cast and that director it is notable Dutchy85 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Discuss If the "fraud" had more coverage it would be notable, I'm not sure I see notability yet, almost. 02:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• It starred some quite major names - Chris lee, Michael York, Trevor Howard - would that not qualify?Dutchy85 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Dutchy85. To answer your question, no. Despite the well known names, notability isn't inherited and the article must stand on it's own...not by who is in it. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Given the notable cast, the fact filming started and the controversy surrounding it, I think it's sufficiently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It has to be notable, in its own right (see WP:NRV).Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am not seeing any notability here, but also I find it difficult to see how we can have a good article on a film that was abandoned during filming. --Bduke (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An abandoned film, with no indication the film is notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Spiderone and others.Nickm57 (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sadly, since this is an interesting and well-written article. But the sources are pretty lacking, and it doesn't look like there is going to be more coverage anytime soon. jp×g 06:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Vanner[edit]

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

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

Fails GNG, fails WP:ENT - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete her roles in film and other places were not significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of this stuff seems terribly significant. Five WP:MILL sources, a search did not find more. No real coverage. Her cover of "Tainted Love" is pretty good, though. jp×g 06:37, 10 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) 16:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest buildings and structures in Derry[edit]

Tallest buildings and structures in Derry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group or set. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, List is composed of 3 buildings, 2 steeples, and 1 structure, only two of which have articles, there is nothing there that can assist in navigation.   // Timothy :: talk  23:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  23:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  23:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Not only that, but the tallest building proper is only 11 stories. And it's sourced entirely to someone else's DB. I see no good reason for this list. Mangoe (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons. Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. The only thing available is routine coverage in Emporis. Thirdly, I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Derry' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources. Spiderone 10:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication the "group or set is notable," Jeepday (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW. I love Derry Girls, which I've just started to watch. That having been said, this list fails every element of my standards for lists of skyscrapers: only two notable buildings, in a city not known for its tourism, none of them over 600 feet, and the list doesn't make sense. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if 85 feet gets you on a six-member list of tallest buildings, I don't think it's a very illustrious list. Also, this doesn't seem like a very salient category of things to be having a list article for. jp×g 06:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. We've had several of these recently, and I can't see how a city with only 4 buildings over 30 m tall merits a list article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - nothing here shows article merit. KylieTastic (talk) 13:43, 11 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) 20:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Muzaffarov[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Single sentence article about a footballer with no demonstrated notability. jp×g 06:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He does play in the top flight of Uzbek football, which is fully professional, so that part of PROD failed. I can't speak to notability, however.--Concertmusic (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of any sources covering this footballer in detail, failing WP:GNG, also, no evidence of playing in a league listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL Spiderone 14:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - meets neither WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as FK Kokand 1912 is a team from Uzbekistan Super League which is listed at WP:FPL under Top level leagues which are not fully professional. KylieTastic (talk) 16:55, 11 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) 21:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bell and Bowles[edit]

Bell and Bowles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find any references for this article, the existing reference is unrelated and the external link isn't particularly related either. As such, it's not possible to prove that this museum/collection actually exists. Mike Peel (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be an WP:AUTOBIO, non-notable. Jumpytoo Talk 20:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lacks the sourcing in WP:RS to suggest notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:TOOSOON. It's scheduled to be opened in 2025, so I'm sure it will warrant an article then. Until then, two guys planning on opening a museum with their 13 motorcycles doesn't strike me as notable, and the sourcing is quite lacking. Although it seems cool. jp×g 06:45, 10 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Hot Doughnuts[edit]

Olympic Hot Doughnuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The only actually reliable source is the article in the Age, which is not about this eating place, but a later one on the same site. DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - even though the place mentioned in the Age article is a replacement it still has a significant history. Deus et lex (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems like a local WP:RUNOFTHEMILL outlet. Geschichte (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's not, it has a long history in the area. It is not a "run of the mill" outlet. Deus et lex (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - sources here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The shop was also the subject of a short film here. Hopefully this satisfies the need for sources, @Spartaz:. People seriously need to do a WP:BEFORE search. Deus et lex (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Deus et lex's sources. The Business Insider and Sydney Morning Herald articles are especially strong. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even with the added sources, I would still say to delete. trivial material about a local business. We keep having this problem with articles of food providers, that people LIKE them. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - DGG, I have to thoroughly disagree here. It's pretty difficult to get a single store getting that much external coverage. This is not a trivial article, it is a well known retail icon in Melbourne's history and the sources support that. I agree that most individual stores do not meet Wikipedia notability standards, but this one does. I have had no involvement in this article at all, so this is not a WP:LIKE suggestion. My point is that this clearly meets GNG and you should not have nominated it for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: In the scheme of an encyclopedia the listing of a now defunct business is Run-of-the-mill. The article is tagged as having promotional wording. This would be identifiable with such wording as the much loved business's future and Even to this day, Olympic Hot Doughnuts has left a substantial legacy on Footscray, surrounding suburbs and Melbourne as a whole, with multiple Facebook fan pages for the former business still active.[citation needed] Please note: This would be a great place for a regional citation to advance notability. I am sure Mr Tsiligiris is a great person but there is a slippery slope argument (average business) to be considered other than the Wikipuffery. As a local and now defunct business I can't see how this would not fall under what Wikipedia is not| which was a local business in a suburb with around 16,000 people receiving local and community media attention, as opposed to regional and especially not national or international. Otr500 (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I ask the closing nominator to note that this user clearly hasn't read the material or any of the discussion above. The fact they refer to "article" suggests they haven't even considered the multiple other sources that I have found that talk about the business, show it is not defunct, it has been replaced by a new owner with the same name, and the fact it has made the state newspaper (not just a local paper - The Age is one of the most well-known newspapers in Australia) and various other sources - this is NOT a run of the mill outlet. It clearly meets GNG. WP:YELLOWPAGES is completely irrelevant to this article - it is not a directory listing with phone numbers, etc. The sources talk about the history of the business and its place as an iconic Melbourne business. I really get tired of having to explain things like this in AfD debates where people don't read things. Deus et lex (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply concerning comments of Deus et lex: All of my neutral gender singular personalities did open a tab for each of the citations "you all" added. Now I think all one of you (still singular I presume) confused this AFD with another. The mundane news reporting of the subject title shows the business is not "a new owner with the same name". The lead states "was a local business" indicating it is now closed. The heraldsun article states "the shop would remain closed". A link on that page has the title "Famed doughnut shop shuts down". Each of the eight images in the "Broadstreet" source has a big red caption stating PERMANENTLY CLOSED. Another heraldsun source has the title Footscray’s famous Olympic Doughnuts will not reopen. Yet another "heraldsun" source states "Owner of Dad and Dave’s cafe Russell Karim opened Footscray Doughnuts and Coffee" mentioned as being the new "leaseholder".

Concerning "this subject", clearly a defunct local business (as evidenced by the multiple mundane news and business reporting provided by Deus et lex) and as indicated in the article, I do not think the sources mentioning the business, the "previous owner", nor the clear demise of the subject (Olympic Hot Doughnuts), as notable (historical or otherwise) for encyclopedic inclusion as a stand alone article. I would suggest rechecking which AFD "you all" are commenting on before giving a solicitation to a closer to discount my comments. As an WP:ATD maybe the subject would be better suited included in another title like Footscray railway station or Footscray, Victoria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)

Your comment doesn't make any sense. The other article shows it has reopened under new owners. But apart from that (and even if I had got that wrong), you have again shown that you don't read what anyone is saying. The business has received external coverage from the state newspapers (and a number of different sources), not just local papers. It is NOT mundane and the claim it is just a business listing is completely untrue. How many times do I need to explain that? Deus et lex (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing moderator - I ask that not much weight be given to Otr500's comments. They do not show that he has read the sources. The fact that a business has closed (the only claim Otr500 really makes) is not a reason for deletion. This is not a business listing, it is a clear case where GNG applies and a strong exception to articles not being kept on shops. This business has a clear strong history and where WP:NOTPAPER applies. Deus et lex (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Look, in the abstract, having an article about a defunct donut shop seems silly. But the fact of the matter is that there is clearly significant media coverage about this. While I personally find articles about defunct local businesses to be silly, I don't think we can delete this article given the current showing of sources/coverage. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think the key failure here is WP:AUD "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The coverage for the article is local, and there are no incoming links from articles. Most of the news articles are brief and local. I am not familiar with all the sources, but they appear local to me. Jeepday (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Jeepday, did you read the articles I posted earlier that confirm the notability of this subject? They are far from brief, and they are definitely not local. The Age (for example) is one of Melbourne (and Australia)'s major newspapers. You must read the whole of the discussion before commenting. Deus et lex (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do not see that the Age article qualifies to create notability. While it is a regional paper, the subject of the article is within 10KM of downtown Melbourne. So it is still local coverage. Jeepday (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - The Age is a major state newspaper for the city of Melbourne. This is NOT local coverage. Local coverage would be the relevant Footscray local newspaper, which this isn't. And you haven't even considered the other articles. I'd ask you to please reconsider your !vote, it is just founded on incorrect guesswork that isn't true. I have listed countless sources above that show that this place is notable. Deus et lex (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is well-supported by good sources. There appears to be enough notability to make the cut for me, and it's a nice piece of 'folklore' - a good encyclopedia piece in my mind.--Concertmusic (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the subject of the article is covered at length in multiple independent reliable sources. The ROTM argument fails here: if this were one of a thousand food trucks or similar that were all covered in this detail by multiple newspapers, that would be different, but there's a reason why this one got so much attention. If the article needs improvement, it can be fixed. Deletion isn't a replacement for quality improvement. --Slashme (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I think it just passes the bar for coverage. KylieTastic (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Our job as editors, and as AfD voters, is not to decide whether the subject of an article is respectable -- it's to decide whether it's notable, by reviewing its coverage in reliable third-party sources. That's present here. Who cares if it's silly or stupid? Politicians can be quite silly and stupid, and we still have articles about them! jp×g 01:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, calling The Age "local media" is perhaps the dumbest take I have ever seen at AfD. Clear-as-day GNG pass, we do not delete articles for being about silly subjects. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Tomorrow's Parties Festival lineups[edit]

All Tomorrow's Parties Festival lineups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There are so many issues with this ludicrously broad directory article that it's hard to know where to start. I will try to summarise my arguments and relate them to Wikipedia policies as much as possible.

• WP:LISTN - this is not covered significantly by reliable sources independent of the subject although you can find sources for some (e.g. [1] and [2])
• WP:IINFO/WP:RAWDATA - Wikipedia is not an exhaustive directory of every single act that has ever taken to the stage at a concert
• WP:LISTPURP - this list is not a valuable information source, it does not assist in navigation and it does not aid in development of the encyclopaedia
• WP:SALAT - I don't believe that this list meets the principles outlined here; it's too broad to have any encyclopaedic value and I do not personally believe that it contributes effectively to this great encyclopaedia
• WP:ATD - I would strongly oppose any attempt to merge this article, because of its size, and I can't think of an obvious redirect target
• Previous consensus on similar articles has resulted in delete, delete, delete and redirect. Spiderone 23:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Listcruft at its worst (or best?). This belongs to some fan page or an archives site of the All Tomorrow's Parties (if there is any), not here. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. This is not really something that warrants a list. jp×g 06:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an unscientific vote - it is based on the fact that there has been a lot of work and effort put into this list over the years by a number of different contributors. In addition, my threshold for lists is very low and simple - does it lend itself to getting to more information quickly and easily by having good wikilinks - and this list passes that bar without trouble.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There surely has to be a better place for this than a general encyclopaedia. I respect that a lot of editors have added to this list but it does not make the topic notable and it's the notability of this topic that's up for debate here. Spiderone 18:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per WP:NOTDIR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR. --Slashme (talk) 12:50, 11 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) 02:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Rockford, Illinois[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Rockford, Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There are no tall buildings in Rockford and none under construction.

This fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

• Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
• Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Emporis and Skyscraperpage do not constitute significant coverage.
• I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Rockford' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
• No significant high-rise building under construction so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
• The city is not the largest in Illinois nor is it the capital.
• I really do not believe that a building being taller than 30m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in Chicago so why are we doing it here?
• This currently violates WP:NOTMIRROR as the article mostly mirrors Emporis.

Similar AfDs for reference: List of tallest buildings in Amherst, Massachusetts and List of tallest buildings in Thunder Bay Spiderone 22:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree to disagree on several points. Under WP:LISTPURP, this list page still fulfills an informational purpose (perhaps more so than an navigational one), I do concede that it does need its source information attended to (experts on the subject, perhaps?); however, List of tallest buildings in Chicago uses nearly exactly the same sources. In terms of city notability, this is the largest city in IL that is NOT Chicago (or its suburbs). If we were to start taking apart every similar like this, the Lists of tallest buildings in the United States template would be left only with Chicago and New York City, which defeats its purpose. --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between this list and Chicago is ultimately coverage. Chicago is home to St. Regis Chicago, the tallest structure in the world designed by a woman. This alone gets coverage, for example here and here and here. Chicago was and still is hugely influential in the world of skyscraper development. It is the subject of numerous books, for example this, this and this. Also, this article explains how even the great Burj Khalifa and the Jeddah Tower can be linked to Chicago. If a similar amount of importance and notability can be found for Rockford then I'll happily change my stance to keep. Spiderone 10:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Some of the building have minor local articles about them, but I don't see anything that meets WP:LISTN "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" Jeepday (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, NLIST, and Jeepday. This list fails every element of my standards for such lists: nothing over 17 stories, only one or two notable buildings, in a city known for trivia more than tourism, and a standalone list that does not make sense to me. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per then above, does not appear to meet WP:NLIST.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:04, 10 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) 02:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foxwood, California[edit]

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

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

This is a gated community within the Lake Almanor Peninsula CDP. I don't see any notability in its own right: on the maps it's difficult to pick it out from the adjacent neighborhood. Mangoe (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability in the article, google news says "No results found for "Foxwood, California" -wikipedia." Jeepday (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above; blatant failure of all applicable guidelines Spiderone 11:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Plumas County, California or Lake Almanor Peninsula. The putative coordinates go to the middle of someone's back yard, completely contained within the census-designated place Lake Almanor Peninsula. The only source for a "Foxwood, California" existing at all is GNIS and a sea of automatically generated sites, featuring gems like: Foxwood, California Facts for Kids - Kids encyclopedia facts, hair surgeries: Foxwood, California(CA) in Plumas county, Where To Buy CBD Oil In Foxwood, Plumas County, California?, and my personal favorite, Local Deals & Coupons. See 0 deals in Foxwood, California. Wowie zowie! I will really miss out on those zero deals, but that's the price we pay for encyclopedic accuracy. jp×g 01:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mememe[edit]

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

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

Non notable organization who falls short of WP:ORG & do not meet any criterion from WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. I would have used the A7 speedy delete but I feel a G4 might be imperative in future. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced stub. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is a one-sentence stub that completely lacks sources that establish why this store is notable.TH1980 (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found this but the rest is just social media posts Spiderone 23:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources given in article, and only ones that can be found are Spiderone's source and [3] which reads like a social media post and probably isn't reliable. Not notable. Pahunkat (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only are there no sources to demonstrate notability, I'm not sure there's even any attempt to claim it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not appear notable and no sources are available Garnarblarnar (talk) 22:00, 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 merge to Huntsville, Alabama#Hospitals. Missvain (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crestwood Medical Center[edit]

Crestwood Medical Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is about a rather small hospital and it the only references in it primary. I could not find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE except for name drops in hospital directories and the usual trivial mentions in articles about COVID-19 that all local hospitals seem to be getting right now. So, this doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG due to lacking multiple in-depth reliable sources about it. Aside from that, according to some people the notability threshold for hospitals is 500 beds. Which this doesn't meet either. So, it fails all the standards for notability. Even the non-guideline based ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This hospital has a trauma center and is a notable regional hospital. Research needs to be done to find the sourcing in local and state references before deleting it. See the revised Hospital notability guidelines in the Project Tutorial page. WP:HOS -- Talk to G Moore 15:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must have missed the part where I said I did research and wasn't able to find sources. Your free to look for any between now and when this is closed, but if none that meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT can be found by then it will likely be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is not WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and in depth. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT and does not meet the criteria for hospitals at WP:HOS essay (which states the article must be ORGCRIT). Two sources in article are 1) to the login page of the American Hospital Association, but from the URL appears to be a database entry; 2) a 404 page on the subject website. There is routine, mill, local coverage, nothing that meets guidelines for hospital notability.   // Timothy :: talk  15:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge some content to Huntsville, Alabama#Hospitals, unless additional references supporting notability can be added (ideally during this discussion). It seems appropriate and necessary to consider Alternatives to deletion here (see WP:IGNORINGATD). The hospital notability guidelines notes "hospitals that do not meet all parts of this standard do not qualify for a stand-alone article, and should instead be described in the country/state list of hospitals and in a section on healthcare or emergency services in their hometown articles or parent organization, with suitable redirects from the hospital's name." A redirect under the hospital name will serve to bring readers to basic information about the hospital, whereas deletion is an unnecessary overreaction to apparently insufficient notability. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, and I think its shared by other people, merges are usually only good when there is reliable secondary sources but just not enough to show notability. Which isn't met in this case. Id be fine a redirect though. Otherwise, if you merged badly sourced material you'd just be making the target article less encyclopedic. Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the article about Huntsville in support of Mdewman6's vote above. This article has some good details but is short enough not to clutter up the larger Huntsville article. If a couple of better sources could be added, that would certainly help.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:19, 10 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. Compelling source analysis Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobroker.com[edit]

Nobroker.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Pure WP:ADMASK, WP:PROMO. Just another startup page without having any encyclopedic value. Qualifies WP:TOOSOON. Hence, calling for an AfD. - Hatchens (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The article needs a major cleanup, almost to the point of WP:TNT, but there are a couple of proper RS references and it does sound like a significant enough tech venture to warrant an article, as long as the promo fluff — which currently makes up much/most of the article — is removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article needs some clean-up by removing anything promotional. I also found some reliable sources which talk about it, its products and acquisitions: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The references provided above are interview style where the founder can say pretty much anything and fail WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. The others in the list are routine and trivial announcement of partnerships, hiring staff and product launches that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The other 15 references in the article are in a similar state, even one which is pure advertising, Why you need NoBroker that fails WP:ORGIND as another interview style report with the lines “Tenants have been paying brokerage year on year without seeing .... states the CEO. All in all, it is a generic property site of which there is millions. It entirely generic. It fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS as well as WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 12:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: After a major clean-up the article can remain. Some of its content sounds like an advertisement so that definitely needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophicalscientist (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Five references have been taken from the site: Lets examine the rest:

* [10] This one has smiling image of Akhil Gupta (left) and Amit Agarwal (right), suggesting it a press-release.

* [11] All brokers get automatically banned from the site,” shares Amit Kumar Agarwal, Co-founder and CEO, NoBroker, who is an alumnus of premium schools IIT Kanpur and IIM Ahmedabad. Fails WP:ORGIND.

* [12] "We see this as a right opportunity to expand our presence in other cities as well," its Chief Executive Amit Agarwal told PTI here. Fails WP:ORGIND.

* [13] Forbes. Non-Rs. Deprecated.

* [14] Small profile listing the company.

* [15] Times of India. "We strongly believe that technology can disrupt this market." Amit Agarwal, founder and CEO of NoBroker, said the reason people trust brokers is for getting documentation such as rent agreement and for assurance on the new tenant. Fails WP:ORGIND.

* [16] Super low quality Techcrunch. “We feel that a peer-to-peer chain has to happen,” Agarwal, formerly with PWC and ANZ Bank, told TechCrunch in an interview Fails WP:ORGIND.

* [ttps://www.forbesindia.com/article/checkin/nobroker.com-ventures-into-property-resale/41409/1] Forbes. Deprecated.

I will not go into the rest. Rest assured, not a single reference is secondary in nature. All of them are press-releases or interview style article. Fails [{WP:ORGIND]], WP:SIRS, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 17:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I never noticed the ones above. Lets look at the first three that should establish notability.
• [17] Saurabh Garg, co-founder and Chief Business Officer of NoBroker.com, said: “We are happy to scale up our offerings on co-living houses and combine our synergies with OYO LIFE to provide safe, hygienic, affordable, and fully managed accommodation to young professionals. Fails WP:ORGIND.
• [18] “In the last 15 days, number of enquiries have jumped up considerably. A lot of them are looking to upgrade themselves to a bigger house,” said Amit Kumar Agarwal, co-founder and CEO, Nobroker.com This fails WP:ORGIND.
• [19] ... painting, repair & maintenance, to preparing the rent agreement, finding new tenants when the previous tenants vacate and organising home visits for prospective tenants, led to the launch of this rental guarantee service six months ago” said Amit Agarwal, co-founder and CEO, NoBroker.com' This fails WP:ORGIND.

All these references show is that the owner can say anything they want, as long as they paying for it. They are all dependent sources, fails WP:SIRS as well. They are junk. scope_creep^Talk 17:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A News search turns up numerous citations of data provided by this company in articles about Bangalore's housing market. This seems to lend itself to a positive notability argument. The article is well written and uses available supporting sources - I think it may be difficult to find true secondary sources for a real estate venture.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite the lengthy comments above listing questionable sources, a cursory search finds several good ones: an Entrepreneur.com article (by a staff editor), two separate Economic Times articles (both by staff editors), and an April TechCrunch article (by a staff writer with previous bylines at VentureBeat, CNBC, The Outline, CNET, and Mashable).

1. All of these articles are primarily about the subject. They are not passing mentions, the company is the primary focus of the article.
2. All of these articles are written by uninvolved parties. They are all from staff writers and editors employed by the publications. None of them are "press releases" or contributor blogs. WP:ORGIND criteria for source independence do not consider the presence of a "smiling photo" of a company's founders to be evidence of "vested interest". News articles about a subject typically feature photos of them, and quotes from them; this is not the same thing as "churnalism" and does not indicate a financial conflict of interest.
3. All three of the sites I mentioned are reliable sources -- I've searched WP:RSP and the noticeboard archives. There is no consensus to claim otherwise.
4. Moreover, in respect to scope_creep's two assertions above, Forbes is not a deprecated source; the entry for Forbes at WP:RSP says "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable ." The deprecation applies to contributor blogs only, for which the RSP entry says "Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor". The byline in this case is "Shruti Venkatesh, Forbes India Staff". RSP does not apply.

Now, most of the sources listed by scope_creep are indeed shoddy and shouldn't be in the article; and for this reason, they also shouldn't affect our assessment of GNG (it's an Indian company, so there's probably coverage that isn't in English). However, I think the sources I found are sufficient to establish notability on their own. And this isn't exactly a WP:MILL company either: "In September 2020, a mob of angry local brokers attacked the company’s office in Bangalore, to protest being excluded from the company's platform.[13][14]" This seems pretty out of the ordinary, doesn't it? jp×g 03:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at the sources that User:JPxG posted above:

• The article at [20] is a press-release. More so it fails WP:ORGIND as it is interview style article. ::
• Looking at this: [21] “We are going ahead with the bonuses and looking to hire people with 4-5 years of experience. We think enough talent is available in the market and in the coming days, we want to increase our market share,” said Akhil Gupta, co-founder and CTO, Nobroker.com.' This also fail WP:ORGIND as an interview style article. More so, it WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial coverage salary increases.
• The third one: [22] Akhil Gupta, Co-Founder & CTO at Nobroker said, "At NoBroker, we leverage the latest technologies to provide a top notch real-estate experience Fails WP:ORGIND as a well as being completely banal in its approach. Every company uses the latest technology.
• This one: [23] India’s NoBroker raises an additional $30M from General Atlantic In a joint interview with TechCrunch, NoBroker’s founders Amit Kumar Agarwal, Akhil Gupta, and Saurabh Garg said the investment is an “endorsement” to the faith General Atlantic, its biggest investor, sees in the startup. The new capital will also give enough runway to NoBroker, they said Not only does it fail WP:CORPDEPTH as routine trivia about monies raised but it is fails WP:ORGIND as an interview style article. All of them fail WP:SIRS and all of them fail WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 10:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This article has been improved since the nomination. From the time of improvements, there was no support for deletion. Yet even if disregarding the change over time, general consensus was to keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Casar[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP, referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, of a person notable only as a city councillor. As always, this is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees a person an article in and of itself -- at this level of office, the bar that a person has to clear to qualify for a Wikipedia article is that they've been the subject of enough nationalizing reliable source coverage in real media to credibly claim that they're significantly more notable than most other city councillors. But this only cites content self-pubished by his own city's government, which is not what it takes. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if he were notable, the content of the article is so poor we'd still have to delete or at least draftify this article on BLP grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 14:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete city council members are not default notable and the sourcing here is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing but primary sources and basic election coverage, insufficient to support a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy. Austin is a state capital but is not a world-class city, for which notability would be automatic. I would be willing to "adopt" this - ping me before deleting. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Added additional information to the article that may help address the primary sources and credibility issues. Terracottaplant1990 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per WP:BARE and WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a city councilman does not confer automatic notability as said by nominator. If there was a WP:SIGCOV then it would definitely be a keep, maybe too soon for now. Lord Grandwell (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I would ask the other reviewers to go back and check out the new and massively improved article. If we delete articles with this much effort having been put in after a warning shot across the bow, we are doing a disservice to our encyclopedia. Impressive work by the author.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's ref-bombed now. There's about two articles which are specifically on him which cover him separately from the city council. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly, that’s a risk we run when we over-emphasize procedural reasons for AfD or for votes. In the spirit of no knowledge is bad knowledge, I’m personally not upset by it.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Being a city council member in Austin, Texas is a situation where WP:NPOL gives no strong guidance one way or the other. While WP:HEY certainly applies compared to the initially nominated article, the sheer number of references are misleading; many are either primary sources such as the Austin election results, are pieces by Casar, or don't mention Casar. Most of the sources that do mention him is local. However, local coverage such as [24] and [25] is just enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep City councilors are not inherently notable under WP:NPOL. However, WP:POLOUTCOMES mentions councilors in cities with international prominence can be kept. While I wouldn't rate Austin up with cities like Chicago and New York where we automatically keep all councilors do to precedent. It's apparent here that Casar does appear to be a little more than your average councilor. He has substantial local coverage (probably more than average councilor), a good amount of state wide coverage (The Texas Observer), and has some more national sources like Politico and the Guardian. Obliviously, not a no body councilor and has just as much if not more coverage than most state legislators. WP:HEY and WP:BARE are here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article was total crap when it was nominated -- since then it's undergone a pretty substantial expansion (and now features a slew of acceptable sources). It could still do with some slight copyediting, but it definitely does not warrant the hatchet. jp×g 02:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  JGHowes  ^talk 17:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Regular Army regiments (1962)[edit]

List of British Regular Army regiments (1962) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The opening LEAD says "This is a list of British Regular Army regiments after the Army restructuring caused by the 1957 Defence White Paper: many regiments were amalgamated between 1958-60. Further cuts and amalgamations took place in the 1960s and early 1970s." Yet The title is List of British Regular Army regiments (1962). How do we know these are the units in the British Army as of 1962 as a result of the 1957 White Paper which is five years after and the units changed across the 1960s and 1970s? Clearly there are no references and the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTN. BlueD954 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. BlueD954 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete unsourced and no sign of notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unsourced, no indication why 1962 would be a notable year for this information. Fram (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article meets WP:CLN WP:AOAL for keeping a list. 1962 is a major year in the Cold War (Cuba), probably the closest point in the Cold War to a hot war. Per CLN "Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks".   // Timothy :: talk  11:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The article is completely unsourced and does not even stick to its purported topic, including information such as "3rd Carabiniers (Prince of Wales's Dragoon Guards) ... amalgamated with The Royal Scots Greys (2nd Dragoons) in 1971 to form the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys)". What happened in 1971 could not have affected the regiments in 1962. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:per Metropolitan90. Aielen85 (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock of BlueD954. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per norminator. Lord Grandwell (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typo.BlueD954 (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I poked around some of the wikilinks just for fun - which is what a good list will lend itself to. I found no inaccuracies on what is listed here by looking through the individual units I sampled. And while the comments on future amalgamations after 1962 may be a little confusing given the name of the list, the data on what happened to the unit after the 1962 date is excellent and useful. This to me is a good and informative list.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: That is not the reason. The reason is there is no references to show these units were formed or retained as as result of the 1957 White Paper. Being informative is not the reason at all. Where are your sources to show they were merged as of the 1957 paper? BlueD954 (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The 1962 Defence White Paper is part of Command Paper 1639. It appears that neither is readily available without some subscription access. If anyone has ProQuest access, I have found some references that these command papers may be available there, and I would love for someone to give it a look. Thank you.--Concertmusic (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Concertmusic: I have ProQuest access. Post requests on my talk page and I'll see if I can access the documents you are looking for. No promises though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hawkeye7: Let's give it a shot. Firstly, I base my statement about where this defence white paper may be found on this link - first sentence. Then, when I search for that numbered command paper, it gets a little muddled, because the number 1639 doesn't seem to fit into the link here about command papers. It may be a wild goose chase - but thank you for taking a quick look!--Concertmusic (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure it exists, but could only find a summary. I did find "Amalgamations and Disbandments in the British Army". Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. 114. London: 82–84. 1 December 1969. The actual plan is found in TNA CAB 129/87/M(57)144 "The Future Organisation of the Army", 18 June 1957, which you can read here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I look forward to some R&R - reading and research!--Concertmusic (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and Keep if this is focused on the list of regiments after the 1957 White Paper, it should say that. If it is about that period, maybe 1957-59, it should be retitled and based upon a specific list, which should be available in various British Army history books or Hansard. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CLN. In agreement with Concertmusic and Buckshot06. Sources are available, list is useful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sources are available"? There are no sources in the article, and the only one offered in this AfD, the 1962 Defence White Paper, is obviously a primary source, so not valid for an AfD discussion (it is of course fine for WP:V, but not for WP:N). Fram (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes there are, and I cited one above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I've added that source to the article. (it's not like the existence of these regiments is disputed - they weren't secrets- and they can be verfied just haven't so far in the article). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The British Army and its structure is certainly notable – see the Encyclopedia of Modern British Army Regiments or Regiments and Corps of the British Army for example. Insofar as the structure has changed repeatedly over time, lists of the current sort are obviously needed to show this. Relevant guidelines and policies include WP:LISTN and WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Do any of the sources here specifically address the structure of the Army in 1962 as referenced in the article title? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer my own question: As far as I can tell, no. "Merged regiments and new brigading — many famous units to lose separate identity" is a 1957 newspaper article. "1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards" doesn't mention 1962. Royal Scots Dragoon Guards doesn't mention 1962. "3rd Royal Tank Regiment" says only that the regiment did home service in Catterick, England, in August 1962. "Post-War Amalgamation 1946-1966 The Queen's Royal Surrey Regiment" doesn't mention 1962. "4th Battalion, The King's Own Royal Border Regiment" doesn't mention 1962. "Birth of a regiment" is a film made in 1959. I can't view the 1969 article "Amalgamations and Disbandments in the British Army", but it isn't cited to support any particular fact in this Wikipedia article. If this article is kept after this AfD, I recommend moving it to List of British Regular Army regiments at some vague, undifferentiated time from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s, since that seems to be all the cited sources can support. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:55, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kolma8 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Weatherhead[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSPERSON (A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.) Kolma8 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - nomination is incorrect, as subject does meet the relevant sports-specific notability guideline (WP:NFOOTBALL). I reckon @Mattythewhite: can expand given this player is notable for playing for the team they support. GiantSnowman 23:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject played in a fully professional league (eight appearances in the Football League) and therefore meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - played in the English Football League, which is indisputably a major professional competition. Nomination is therefore simply wrong. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - does pass the SNG (WP:NFOOTBALL) as York was a Football League club at that time. It would have been more appropriate to nominate on the grounds of failing WP:GNG although he may well pass that too. Spiderone 13:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As subject does appear notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Garnarblarnar (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Will withdraw per above arguments. Kolma8 (talk) 17:49, 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) 02:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fino Herrera[edit]

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

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

Does not satisfy WP:NACTOR Emperork 🐋🐰 21:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Emperork 🐋🐰 21:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Emperork 🐋🐰 21:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Definitely WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The parts look minor, does not meet WP:NACTOR Jeepday (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above. Also, created by a sock of ParillasAndrie. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ParillasAndrie. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - deletion is the only option here; fails WP:GNG as well as NACTOR and the article was created by a confirmed sock Spiderone 22:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Boy[edit]

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

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

Questionable notability, few if any reliable secondary sources. Mansheimer (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Googling for information about him under his penname is predictably difficult, and the scene/era of his greatest notability is notoriously smallpress and offline. But this academic source lists him under "Significant people, organizations and subjects" (alongside quite a few people we have articles for), which is an attestation of notability.[26] It's a "passing mention" to be sure, but the fact that NYTimes sought him out to include in this group photo reflects his notability.[27] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Just not notable. According to present sources, searching, and the two provided above the subject does not pass WP:ARTIST. If we have to consider a name drop from a picture that includes 98 other people (nytimes) or passing mention, as a "hint" of possible notability, that is stretching things. A good indication of failing notability guidelines would be when a penname is predictably difficult to find in a search. Another indicator would be when information is "notoriously smallpress and offline". I opened a lot of tabs trying to verify the unsourced content of the "Comics and Artistic Work" and the short story "Green Pubes" (presented as being "the first animated queercore movie"), other than through IMDb. Print work on pins and tee shirts (artist) did return needed sources. As a BLP there are some demands that sourcing should be better. Otr500 (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the reason his penname is difficult to search for is because it is a common generic phrase; the googlability of a subject's name should not be the standard for notability, nor should we presume that only things easily found that way matter. Queer punk media and the early queer sociopolitical movement were covered mostly within that community – with some lesser acknowledgement by others – but that's just marginalized groups getting shoved to the margins. The Queer Zine Archive Project[28] and Queer Zine Explosion identify him as noteworthy within that scene, indicating that he is (per WP:ARTIST) "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". He was definitely groundbreaking and influential ("Anonymous Boy's drawings of punk guys in love have been gracing the pages of zines and the covers of records since the days of JDs.")[29] "G.B. Jones and Bruce LaBruce’s seminal JDs (1985-1991), for example, featured early work by lesbian cartoonist Carrie McNinch, and Tony Arena’s first Anonymous Boy cartoons. .... [which] can be seen as among the first in what I call the “Second Wave” of LGBT comics and creators." –"The History of Gay Male Comics in America from Before Stonewall to the 21st Century", Sina Shamsavari, London College of Fashion, International Journal of Comic Art[30]. Additionally, the ACT UP Oral History Project's interview with him and his partner[31] provide a bit more substantial coverage of him and reflects how his place in queer history is regarded. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just because sources are difficult to locate doesn't mean they don't exist, this is especially true re: print sources which I suspect are more forthcoming given this subject's age and artistic medium. Given the subject was a columnist for Maximum RocknRoll among other things noted above I'm quite certain that, should any editor do the groundwork, reliable sources will be found. Better to leave this article in place so that this work can be done. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing any good sources right now, and a claim that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is just wishful thinking, I am afraid. Until they are found, this has to stand on its own, but sadly, it fails WP:NCREATIVE and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JasonAQuest I am not against being shown that my assessment might be in error but the concept of original research would be making statements not backed up by sources to show that an individual or Wikipedia is not the author. Words like "important figure" (as a rationale to clear WP:ARTIST) and "reflects his place in queer history is regarded", need more than some samples of his artwork and one interview, that would show the subject was more than just another editorial cartoonist. These statements need to be backed up by sources that use or indicate specifically the wording. What we consider as "important" or specifically "historically important" needs to be covered as such in reliable sources otherwise it is just an opinion or original research.

I couldn't view the source International Journal of Comic Art so can't comment on it. I do know that we need to discern between independant, non-independent, and Indiscriminate sources to see if there is actual support to advance encyclopedic notability. There is evidence that the subject contributed to more than just Maximum RocknRoll but if that were the only criteria then all contributors (editorial or drawings) to magazines, newspapers, or articles would be notable. I do know this type of sourcing (aortamagazine used in the article) should be banned from Wikipedia as pure advertisement. That an editor that viewed the source would even remotely consider it appropriate would make the head of a nail hurt. Otr500 (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I'd like to see a couple stronger sources than the 4 offered in the original article. As it stands now, it leans toward not yet meeting WP:GNG10Sany1? (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see where this subject meets WP:GNG the two keep arguments are very weak amounting to "there are better references we just can't find them." Jeepday (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One reference in this journal International Journal of Comic Art, and several references in books about gay comic art. Seems a good encyclopedia article in my mind.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the reasons concertmusic gave above. -gtrmp (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not nearly enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. The "article" listed just above is... I'm not sure what. It appears like either a term paper, or the text of a lecture. Regardless, even it only has two brief mentions, hardly in-depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:14, 10 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) 02:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tayler Mercier[edit]

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

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

Unremarkable individual, doesn't meet WP:GNG guidelines. Quitede (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Influencer. Delete, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant, reliable, independent coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, no reliably-sourced evidence of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete  not enough coverage. Does not pass notability guidelines WP:GNG. Peter303x (talk) 02:09, 10 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) 02:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sasho Tatarchevski[edit]

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

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

I found no significant coverage. The three references are dead. An earlier version mentioned some awards, but there is no indication of them being significant. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete, no doubts Kolma8 (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:16, 10 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) 02:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haven, California[edit]

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

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

This is another odd cock-up on the part of GNIS, because the name on the topo maps is quite plainly "Little Haven". And if you search for that phrase, you get a number of hits which explain that it is a sort of stop on the Pacific Crest Trail where you can get some assistance. Which is to say, it's one of several ordinary houses on the spot. "Haven", as far as I can tell, was never anything at all other than a failure to copy what's on the map correctly. Mangoe (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Google News search only about other "Havens" in California. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom; fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:57, 11 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. It does not appear that there was anything close to a consensus for deletion on the first two rounds of listing this, but on the third relisting the trend to keep is too clear to miss. BD2412 T 04:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Ventures[edit]

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

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

Non-notable media company. This article does not present a case for corporate notability, and a naïve Google search does not indicate that any obvious sources have been overlooked. The company exists, which we knew, and has this Wikipedia article. The article provides a very brief summary of what the company says about itself, and says nothing about what third parties say about the company. The article has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources, but they do not establish notability. 6 of the references are the company's own web site, and 2 are to the web site of an investing company. There is a history of the creation of promotional articles about the company. A draft has also been created and has been declined. The draft also does not establish corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Noncommittal comment. My intuition is that the corporate parent of CNET (see [32], [33], [34]) is probably notable, but it seems like the vast majority of coverage is in the context of that acquisition. Apparently it's been around since 2000, and was a marketing company as of 2016. If others don't turn up better sourcing, maybe redirect to CNET? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:COMMONSENSE precedes all guidelines. All citation templates include the name of the publisher. If the website is notable (CNET), it just seems sensible that the citation should refer to a publisher that's notable too. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to CNET would appear to be a commonsense and sensible solution. None of the references available meet our NCORP guidelines so a redirect as an alternative to deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly the article could use some fleshing out, but notability doesn't seem to be a concern given the list of products owned. The sourcing appears to be reliable, if not overly deep, but I don't see deletion as the solution.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The company owns numerous independently notable media properties (CNET, ZDNet, TV Guide, Metacritic, GameSpot, Chowhound etc) and just announced their acquisition of the world's largest travel publisher Lonely Planet. The company has independent coverage, such as this piece in Inc [35], and their acquisition spree in itself is notable and has been well covered in reputable sourced, eg. [36]. Jpatokal (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or ATD of Redirect to CNET: Fails NCORP and any form of GNG. At this time, and from what I see, I agree with the Nom about the low-quality sources (promotional) and lack of notability for a stand alone article. Long standing community practices are that notability is not inherited. Two of the "keep arguments above, such as, "given list of products owned", and "The company owns numerous independently notable media properties.", along with comments that Wikipedia become a news outlet with "their acquisition spree in itself is notable...", suggest that we now move in a new direction. If the parent company becomes notable in it's own right would be the time to publish a neutral article. == Otr500 (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not even close to being notable in its own right, not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This company has "a portfolio of over 100 news and information sites ... reaches over 300 million readers worldwide every month." I think it is goo enough to keep it on wikipedia, especially given the recent acquisitions of CNET and LP. Kolma8 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The company meets all the citeria for notability. Cite references include primary media coverge of the company by: The Wall Street Journal, Inc., The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Variety, Irish Times, Financial Times - showing notability. Davodd (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. The references you cite fail WP:NCORP which are the guidelines to use for all organizations. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Do NOT redirect. Company is notable. This is a company with HQ based in U S. with offices in the U.S., Brazil, UK, China, Australia, etc. It has a portfolio of companies in digital marketing. Article has sufficient citations. SWP13 (talk) 02:16, 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) 02:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Mulhall[edit]

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

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

Relisting after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Mulhall was closed as "no consensus" and no real improvement has been made to the page.

Does not meet WP:RLN or WP:GNG as the subject has not played for a top-level rugby league club or represented his nation in a major tournament. The sources are mostly non-independent or merely mentions of him. There's a paywalled article that mentions him as a firefighter. The Everything Rugby League article is from a site that solicits article submissions so it doesn't qualify as an WP:RS.

As far as I can tell, the subject of the article is the only editor who's added any significant content, which isn't much. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia needs to start enforcing its policies against autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - another really unhelpful comment, John, what does that actually mean? That Wikipedia policies only work when articles you don't like get deleted? Deus et lex (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This seems like a bit of an abuse of the AfD process when you relist so soon after the initial listing, along the lines of keep listing until you get your way. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON but I'd be prepared to keep given he's listed to coach the Delaware Black Foxes in the upcoming 2021 season and that's not far away. Deus et lex (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I don't know that he's going to be notable for being the coach of an American Rugby League club that gets little to no independent coverage. And I don't think it's an abuse of AFD considering the subject has had almost 2 months to improve the article since the other AfD and hasn't made any effort to improve the notability claim beyond adding the aforementioned article and removing article issue templates. Again, I don't think it's encouraging when no one other than the article subject is willing to contribute to the article. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The fact that the club has an article means that there is a valid alternative to deletion which you are required to consider before nominating for deletion. And you also need to remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress - there is no time pressure to improve an article before it is deleted. 2 months is not a great deal of time. The previous AfD made no suggestion of ways to improve the article. Deus et lex (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet GNG- its all just names on a list from team listings connected to the subject, passing mentions and there are no less than three forum posts?! out of ten references; barely any of the refs appear to be reliable sources to start with. The closest to in depth in an RS we get is the AFR ref from 2019 "Liam Mulhall, 38, a fireman who served with the RAAF, said he had been diagnosed with total and permanent disability injuries by six specialists, including two psychiatrists, and told by medical specialists he could not work or be retrained for another job. Mr Mulhall said: "It took me seven months to find out whether they will accept a claim. Even though I have six specialists they kept adding more clauses, more loopholes, more forms, more questions." Mr Mulhall's claim was approved this month because of injuries caused when he was a fireman." That's it. Curdle (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he fails any relevant WP:SNG and has never been significantly covered by a non-independent source per WP:GNG. Non-notable league player, unfortunately. SportingFlyer T·C 16:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what about the valid alternatives to deletion? You haven't shown that they are inappropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to show they're inappropriate when the article that was the suggested redirect was recently deleted? SportingFlyer T·C 11:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Absorb Add these details in the Delaware Black Foxes article, as that page appears to have had player RLN applied to a club, where this player and coach of this club would fail notability but the club itself would not be constrained by those rules.Fleets (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That AfD discussion didn't even mention RLN. SportingFlyer T·C 11:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should not have been deleted.Fleets (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not agreeing with you. I'm saying that the other article was deleted for not having any reliable sources, and no reliable sources were available to add. It had nothing to do with the SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, google came up with 743k pages, I'm sure you just missed those by mistake.Fleets (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I'm still engaging here, but not only did I get around 2,950 Google hits in my search for that article just now, but Google hits aren't what we use to determine notability. Removing the quotes brought up... a lot of articles about foxes, since the fox is the state animal of Delaware. SportingFlyer T·C 15:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To piggyback, those 2,950 are mostly match reports, social media links and stats, hits that do not establish notability. As far as I can tell, you're basically left with two very similar articles created after the Black Foxes article that appear to rely almost entirely on quotes from Mr. Mulhall and the club itself. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see significant independent coverage of him that would meet WP:GNG. I also see nothing that would show he meets WP:ANYBIO. Being a former semi-pro rugby player and coach do not meet any notability criteria. Perhaps a redirect to the team page on WP would be reasonable, if it hadn't been previously deleted. Papaursa (talk) 22:10, 11 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. Improve it, please.

Can always be nominated again if needed. Just remember - AFD is not to be used for clean up. Thanks everyone! Missvain (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tzahi (Zack) Weisfeld[edit]

Tzahi (Zack) Weisfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Well this article's a mess. A big one too. But before we go in with brooms I put the community whether or not the article should stay. Regardless of the current advertisementy tone there are independent sources and the subject itself looks like it may eek over the bar of notability, so I'm listing this here to settle the matter first. As a preemptive strike, I note in this nomination that the article's contributor appears to be both a new and to have declared as a paid editor, so take this into account if and when he posts here. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your comments. As I have mentioned before, This article is not being paid by anyone. Weisfeld is a catalysator of innovation in the Hi-tech and start-up ecosystem not only in Israel , but also globally. I gave sitelinks to several independent sources such as Techchrunch, Calcalist,Insider magazine and Zdnet which indicates his contributions. Weisfeld was one of many few Israelis who holds Senior position in a large cooperate like Microsoft, and before that take a vital parts in Israeli hi-tech companies such as Modu. He founded Microsoft for startups and was the force behind the growth of Microsoft activities for startups, accelerators and investments with partnership of 200 accelerators, companies, Startups and Vc funds. I think his actions and biography are no different with other entrepreneur like Jonathan Medved , Hillel Fuld and other Israeli entrepreneurs. For conclusions, I think the subject itself are worth Wikipedia article, And I will be happy to work on it further for matching the Wikipedia standards. Shaykea (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/guidance The focus of the deletion decision should be 1) is the topic notable? If not notable then delete, if "possibly notable" (NOT "marginally notable, but no hope of finding sources to push it "over the line", but rather "there are likely sources that haven't turned up yet that will push it over the line" or "there is still debate over the quality of the sources"), soft delete, draftify (since there is obviously ongoing improvement, with hopes of finding suitable sources), userfy (ditto), or "no consensus." If it IS notable, BUT WP:Blow it up and start over applies, then salvage the references and userfy them and delete. Obviously, if the topic is notable and the page can be salvaged, then "keep and improve."

I have NOT read THIS article and its references closely enough to have an opinion on THIS AFD discussion YET. I'm just outlining the reasons for deletion vs. keep vs. other outcomes in a situation where the article is "a mess" and where the notability status is not yet certain. This comment is for inexperienced editors and others not familiar with AFD, it is a "high level" view and does not include all nuances, experienced AFD editors are aware of "edge case" situations where this does not apply. TomStar81, you are more "grey-beard" than I am by far (mop, golden wiki, 2004 start date, need I say more?), this comment isn't meant for you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We need to divide article subjects into notable / non-notable to make the pragmatic decision on whether to have an article, but it's an artifice mapping. Even within the GNG standards, subjects meet them to a varying extent: references are more or less reliable, more or less independent. , more or less significant. We can have 2 borderline acceptable references, or may excelletn ones. (By any real-life standard, there's of course a great variation---living people for example do not divide up nicely between two categories, nor does any other subject. ). Theidea that notability is an objective mechanical determination does not make sense, even using hte GNG, and we have about 30,000 AfD discussions a year to prove it , about 1/10 of the total articles. And notability however defied is of course not hte only consideration in deletion. We do not accept advertisements, or any of the other categories listed in NOT -- tho for all of them, it's again a matter of degree. The focus of the deletion decision isn't whether something is or is not notable--that's just one of the many possible reasons (though it's the most common one). It is on whether the article is appropriate for WP according to its policies--and notability is just one guideline related to one part pof one of the policies DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've removed the patents, the dodgy external links per elno and a dodgy ref. There is more than enough coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV to build a new article. It is a BLP article that reads like a company article and references are very poor. Reference 3 is only one amongst the lot that provides biographical information in a profile, which itself is very poor. GBooks has enough to support a new article. I think this should be slimmed right down, get rid of the WP:PUFF. Changed from Delete to Comment. scope_creep^Talk 14:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Summarizing the arguments so far, It seems that most of the edtiors agree that the page can be notable. After scope_creep edited the article and removed content which may considered as WP:PUFF, the article was reviewed and verified by Onel5969. In Addition, I replaced some weak references and add cites from interviews in more common and objective news and media resources. Therefore after the corrections and the help of the community to make the article more notable, I suggest to remove the page from WP:AFD and keep it.Shaykea (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - my review of the article was purely procedural, as it was nominated for deletion through AfD. The AfD discussion will be the arbiter of whether the article is kept or not, so per NPP sop, these articles are routinely marked reviewed to remove them from the back-logged queue. I have not reached an opinion on the notability of the subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading this article, I wonder what the deletionist had in mind. The subject is clearly notable and the sources are solid. I see no valid basis for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 (Talk) Since you have flagged the article with WP:AfD at the first place, I will be happy to get your feedback on the current situation of the Article. Do you think that in the current situation the WP:AFD should be removed? Shaykea (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Shaykea: Sorry for the slow reply, I didn't realize you had reached out to me. In answer to your question I do not have the authority to remove the tag because the article is not nominated for speedy deletion, it is nominated for deletion, which means it is before the community as a whole. As a check on this, a two man rule is in place here, so since I nominated it I can not close it, another admin will do so and interpret the discussion here to ensure partiality. Since the nomination began work has been done on the article, but at the moment only a single keep !vote has been tallied, so it ultimately comes down to the assertion by Geewhiz that the article is notable the sources solid vs my assertion that the article is promotional in nature. Keep in mind you may cast an !vote too, if you like, you are a member of the community and unless you are under sanctions not to do so you may contribute here as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : As I have mentioned before, Zack Weisfeld is a major force in the Israeli and the worldwide Start-ups Ecosystem. He was a senior executive in microsoft and he was in charge of all microsoft investments at startups and expanding its accelerators. His biography are no different with other entrepreneur like Jonathan Medved , Hillel Fuld and other Israeli entrepreneurs.

Shaykea (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Zack Weisfeld is a senior executive in microsoft and was in charge of all microsoft investments at startups and expanding its accelerators. There are 21 Reliable and highly valued source references e.g. Forbes,Globes newspaper,TechCrunch, www.calcalist.co.il etc . He was listed as "one of the 10 most influential Israelis in high-tech in the world" by Business Insider Magazine. I see no reason to delete such important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaterLord1980 (talk • contribs)

The above keep vote is so far this editors only WP-edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have nothing to disprove what I said so you attack me personally, this is called Ad Hominem "attacking the person instead of attacking his argument". And by the way what you said is false, this is my second edit. My last one was a year ago :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaterLord1980 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WaterLord1980: This is getting a bit off-topic. You should forgive the misunderstanding about the edit count: Like me, the other editor was probably only considering your edit history on the English-language Wikipedia. I dug a bit deeper and saw that yes, indeed, you did make one edit on a different-language Wikipedia in 2019 (see here). Please forgive the misunderstanding. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, I was 100% wrong about the number of edits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have been canvassed about this AfD by an IP. Personally I am quite troubled by the effort that someone (or some people) are going to to get this article created and kept. Created by a paid editor, photo approved through OTRS, accounts from other language wikis with virtually no edits suddenly appearing here to support its retention. The subject appears to be borderline notable, but the behaviour of those involved makes me want to support its deletion. Number 57 16:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : I read the discussion above. As well as I know, Mr. Weisfeld is a notable figure, and one of the leaders of the early-stage technology scene in Israel for the last decade, founding and leading two of the most influential global startup programs by Intel and Microsoft, after a long career as an entrepreneur and executive in succesful tech companies. The article has many sources and articles that demonstrate that, and it's fairly well written, so I'd vote "keep". --Hmbr (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another aspect of this AfD that looks suspicious – this is only the third edit to en.wiki this year by Hmbr (previous one in September). What is going on here? I would guess that I am not the only editor who was canvassed here. Number 57 16:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : I have stumbled across this AfD without having been prompted - FYI. Based on the sourcing and content, while not an outstanding article in and of itself, I don't have an issue with notability or reliability. It strikes me as in interesting encyclopedia piece on a leader in his field in his country.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes notability guidelines. The shape of the article and the fact that some COI people might want it to stay I don't think changes that. The article didn't seem to be in too bad of a shape to me, but I'm not that experienced. Nobody told me to come here Bedfordres (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added copyedited and added some data and references to the article. Calcalist, Forbes, Business Insider, Times of Israel and Globes are all worthy sources. There seems to be no question of notability here.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If kept, we should make every effort to put this person under Tzahi or Zack. The current name looks really bad. gidonb (talk) 11:59, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtis Conner[edit]

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

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

Fails GNG: nothing beyond Youtube and coverage of his YouTuber status. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comedians have rather high notability and also it is currently semi-protected. ~Cupper (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Of the 11 footnotes here, more than half are invalid support for notability: three are his own self-published social media content about himself, two are university student newspapers, one is a self-created press release announcing his own comedy show, and one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article whose core subject is something else. That leaves just four links that are acceptable, but none of them are verifying anything that would be "inherently" notable under our inclusion standards for entertainers — so the only notability claim they support is "notable because media coverage exists", and four links isn't enough to get there. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A few sources in the article seem to be reliable, including source #3. I also found some reliable sources which talk about him, whether fully or partially: [37], [38], [39], [40] and [41]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:ENT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Young Hollywood" is not a reliable or notability-supporting source; Iowa State Daily and The Gateway are both university student newspapers, not general market media, so they don't contribute any WP:GNG points; the Broadway World hit is his own press release announcing a performance, not journalistic coverage about the performance (on that site, you have to forget about anything that has the author credit given as "BWWNewsDesk" instead of a real person's name, because BWWNewsDesk means they're reprinting the subject's own self-published press release); Cincinnati CityBeat is an alt-weekly, which means it's fine to use but not enough to singlehandedly get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only valid new source you can provide over and above the mostly garbage sources that were already in the article. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I found several sources, here, here, and here, and also considering Cincinnati CityBeat article found by ASTIG, I am convinced that this person passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are new sources; all three of them are already in the article, and already among the four sources that I assessed above as not enough. If a person doesn't have an accomplishment that constitutes an "inherent" notability claim that requires an article to exist, then it takes more than four hits of media coverage to get them over the "notable because media coverage exists" bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is literally the exact opposite of what WP:GNG says. Your opinion seems to be that if someone does clear a WP:SNG, than they are not notable, which is not only completely ludicrous, its also the exact opposite of what WP:SNG is, they are designed to supplement GNG, not replace it. Your personal rants do not override policy. So, I think you will find that according to the actual policy surrounding notability, "four hits of media coverage" is in fact double what is needed to prove notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG most certainly is not, and never has been, "if a person can show two hits of media coverage, then they're automatically exempted from having to actually pass the actual SNG for their occupation". GNG does not just count the footnotes and automatically keep anybody who has two — it tests the sources for their depth, their geographic and temporal range, their type and the context of what they're covering the person for, and discounts some sources as contributing less than other sources do. If the existence of two sources, without any further depth or range or context tests, were all it took to exempt a person from having to pass an SNG, then the list of people we would have to keep articles about would include every city and town councillor in every city and town on earth, unelected candidates for every political office in every election on earth, every school board trustee on earth, every musician who ever got local coverage for playing the local pub without ever accomplishing anything that would pass WP:NMUSIC, every high school athlete who ever got a blip of local human interest coverage for being on the high school football team despite having only nine toes, my mother's neighbour who got a bit of "news of the weird" coverage a few years back for finding a pig in her front yard, and me.
So no, the mere existence of two hits of media coverage is not in and of itself a GNG-based exemption from having to pass any SNGs — in actual fact, to get into Wikipedia on that little coverage, one or both of the sources would have to be verifying passage of an "inherently" notable criterion in an SNG. That is, if a person wins an Academy Award, then they get to be in Wikipedia on just one or two sources which verify that award win even if they have no other sources — but if a person has no "inherent" notability claims under any SNGs, and instead the notability claim you're shooting for is "because media coverage of him exists", then it does take a lot more than just two, three or four sources to get him over that bar. And that goes especially when two of the four hits come from a site listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as a problematic and non-ideal source, and a third comes from a local alternative weekly — if that's actually the best he can do, then it is not good enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim than the mere existence of a small handful of sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you do not get to make up stuff in complete contrast to what actual policy says. If you want to rewrite policy, that is your prerogative, but this is not the place to Wikilawyer an attempt to rewrite policy. Also, WP:BLP1E exists. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making up or rewriting or wikilawyering a goddamn thing. There is an established consensus that GNG is not just "count the footnotes, and keep everybody and everything who gets to two"; there is an established consensus that GNG tests sources for their depth, range and context, and not just their number alone; there is an established consensus that if you're shooting for "doesn't pass any SNGs, but is notable anyway just because media coverage exists", then it does take quite a bit more than just a small handful of media hits; there is an established consensus that Insider is a problematic source — it's literally marked as such in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources — which means it can be okay for very sparing use, but cannot be the core of an argument that a person passes GNG in the first place. Again, not making a damn thing up: we have an established consensus about how GNG actually works when matters of differing interpretation come up for debate and discussion, and I'm not wrong about what that established consensus is. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Searching News gets me over 500 hits across a wide variety of entertainment outlets. Several of them appear to be reliable sources. Then there is this in-depth bio piece, news of sold out shows in Chicago - all in all I have no issues with notability or sourcing availability.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This feels like a delete because the Keep side haven't provided a y real counter to why this year and the NOT arguments and the source analysis at the end is pretty devastating but with the nom being blocked for multiple socking I'm not quite there.

I'm also super over these order of battle arguments by year. Here is a radical idea. Can we stop nominating and creating these and actually draw up a guideline that both sides like a bit and hate a bit because that way we can sort this area out in a consistent and non-contentious way. Just a thought. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Territorial Army units (2012)[edit]

List of Territorial Army units (2012) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article sates List of Territorial Units in 2012. But by 2012, there was no more TA but the Army Reserve. Why do we need a list of units in a specific year? The article is totally unreferenced and not up to Wikipedia standards. It does not meet WP:GNG, WP:SNG, WP:ARTN. BlueD954 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete largely unsourced and no sign of notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Actually the TA was renamed the Army Reserve in 2014. It needs to be repurposed as a list of TA units before the reforms and better sourced, but it is a valid article as a final list of TA units. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Which source states the date the TA was renamed the Army Reserve? You made no effort to improve a vast unreferenced list. Why is such a list verified and notable?BlueD954. (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defence Reform Act 2014. Per WP:V, it needs to be verifiable, which it clearly is. Yes, it needs better sourcing, but claiming that the structure of the British Army does not meet WP:GNG is ludicrous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is ludicrous is you calling this a structure. It's a list of units with no references BlueD954 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is a list of units with their subunits not a structure? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See why this PROD was deleted. BlueD954 (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had I spotted it in time I would have deprodded that too. And I've now restored it. But it's not in the slightest relevant to an AfD in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a valid list and the links provide citing. It needs some clean up, but should be kept. Kierzek (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp and WP:NNC. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been explained before: WP:NNC is not an argument to keep (or delete) lists, it is an argument that if a list subject is notable (which is what is up for debate), there is no need to establish that each individual entry in the list is notable as well. E.g. a list of compatitors in a notable sporting event may well include non-notable individuals, and NNC argues correctly that that isn't a problem. It does not argue that a list of competitors in a non-notable sporting event would be acceptable. Fram (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable, independent sources are provided. At the moment, this lacks all notability. Fram (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look on GBooks. References can be found e.g., 1, 2, 3. This is a pss for WP:LISTN and WP:NEXIST. FOARP (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That first one, fine, but the second one are truly passing mentions, and the third one contradicts our own article on many points, making it rather unclear if it really is a reliable source. Fram (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would prefer not to see a proliferation of orbats. Dormskirk (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but so long as the OOBs are kept to those following major changes in organisation, then this would seem kosher. FOARP (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Apart from the one book above, this appears to fail WP:LISTN as it hasn't really been discussed in RS. SportingFlyer T·C 13:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per Mztourist.Leahjstaples1234 (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock of BlueD954. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp. jp×g 12:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:per SportingFlyer.Aielen85 (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock of BlueD954. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As the discussion above highlights, there seems very little basis for this list in WP:RS. I have yet to see an argument about why 2012 is particularly justifiable compared with, say, 2011 or 2013. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a collection of cruft that fails WP:LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This appears to be exactly what I would look for in a list. Great wikilinking to other articles I may be interested in, and as a list, I would expect to find the supporting sources in maybe just 1 or 2 places - which is certainly the case here. Notability certainly isn't a factor for me on a list of this nature and size. Same argument as for 2 other lists nominated for AfD - which leads me to add the argument that these British Army-related lists should be kept as a unit.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's easy to find sources for this such as The British Army Guide 2012 - 2013. Passes WP:LISTN and WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article meets WP:CLN WP:AOAL for keeping a list. Per CLN "Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks".   // Timothy :: talk  17:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Nom and the the flawed rationale of Concertmusic (the size of the article has nothing to do with notability) and Andrew Davidson (A primary source does not advance notability and [[WP:NEXIST: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.) This is a 2013 list article. I was wondering exactly what Brigade Piron stated: "why 2012 is particularly justifiable compared with, say, 2011 or 2013". With the direction keep !votes are leaning we could have a very large (makes it obviously notable) article on any subject where a primary source is shown. That is not according to our accepted community practices on sourcing such as [[WP:V|All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. That does not necessarily mean "presented on the article" but along with WP:BURDEN, since notability is questioned, then proof should be presented. Lacking this is evidence of a lack of notability. The criteria of Wikipedia:LISTN clearly states "independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". Since primary sources do not advance notability there is a very fundamental issue with claims the article satisfies WP:LISTN. Since none of the "keep !votes" are advocating to keep because of invoking WP:IAR (so we can't discuss that) then the policies and guidelines are applicable to list articles, as a group, and with only primary sourcing it fails that. I am still trying to determine the encyclopedic value of such a list. WP:CLN (#5) gives disadvantages of having such a list ...entries that cannot be reliably sourced and do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia., and sourcing that advances notability is the main issue. Otr500 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Otr500 is quite mistaken. The British Army Guide 2012 - 2013 is not a primary source – not even close, as it is a compendious reference work. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It seems Andrew Davidson is correct that the source is not primary apparently drawing on primary sources ("The information in this publication has been gathered from unclassified sources") and does not offer anything more than a listing. According to the site it is listed as "The Defence Suppliers Directory" with the further, "The Defence Suppliers Directory has become a Global Marketplace for customers seeking Defence related products." This makes it appear as a vendors list so I still question that copying the list is an acceptable source to advance inclusion notability for an article. I also still don't see the relevance of one particular year over any other as particularly notable when the content can be part of an updated article. Otr500 (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Yet another list of military units in an arbitrary year with extremely inadequate sourcing. Let's look at the references. TA Units - British Army Website Archived 2013-05-17 at the Wayback Machine is a broken link, supposedly archived at the Wayback Machine but with no link to the archived version. Queen's Regulations, March 2009 is a 354-page document, whose pages bear a variety of dates, but it's not clear what fact it's being cited to support nor where that fact would appear in the document. "Territorial Army Bands (TA)". is cited to support the statement, "There are currently 20 Army Reserve bands located across the UK with one in Gibraltar", but I don't see any reference to 20 Army Reserve bands on that page nor to one being in Gibraltar. TAQ (12 ed.). MoD. June 2011. ((cite journal)): Missing or empty |title= (help) is cited as a reference to a journal but with no article title or page number -- and, for that matter, I don't see any journal named TAQ listed in the British Library catalogue. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acta Pintériana[edit]

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

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "I agree that the article has issues that can be addressed. I also freely admit that I do not read Hungarian. But by following the links provided in the article, I found back issues of this annual journal back to 2015. Numerous authors have spent many hours writing these articles. I am not a fan of WP:GNG - this article needs improvement, not deletion" (stated on article talk page). This is not a valid claim to notability either under GNG or under NJournals. PROD reson stands, hence; delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Journal has entries in international registers such as ISSN and WorldCat, which seems to cover inherited notability in WP:NJournals. There are 6 annual issues with what appears to be articles of academic interest in the subject matter. Without an ability to read Hungarian or properly search for further resources on Hungarian sites, I don’t believe that we have enough information to make a good call - hence I believe that we should err on the side of keeping the article in the interest of inclusivity. Most importantly, the article provides new data and enough information to do further reading and research - just what I want from an encyclopedia article. Thank you.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but you are misinterpreting NJournals. An ISSN is easy to obtain, you just have to file a request. Similarly, WorldCat is not selective either but strives to include everything that even a single library will hold. Publishing issues in and of itself doesn't confer notability either. If we don't have enough information to make a good call, that basically means that neither GNG nor NJournals are met. Sources in Hungarian are perfectly admissible, but as it stands we basically have only the information provided by the journal itself, which is not enough to base an article upon. --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to object to your statement of “ If we don't have enough information to make a good call, that basically means that neither GNG nor NJournals are met.” That appears to be leaning in the direction of deletionism. I would much rather have us adopt something more along the lines of “no harm, no foul” - and I don’t see the harm in keeping the article. I do appreciate the discussion-that was my point in deleting the PROD.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You may call it "deletionism" if you like, but based on your reasoning here we should do away with AfD. Just G11 (speedy deletion off spam) would be enough. That's not what we do. Harmless or not, an article has to be based on independent reliable sources, which we don't have here. Your !vote is therefore not based in policy. The journal is still young, perhaps it will become notable over time, but I broke my crystal ball yesterday, so I can't give a firm prediction. ;-) --Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate the honest and civil discourse. I also appreciate you basing your argument largely on NJournals and not on GNG, which I find to be poor policy. You mentioned policy - I am hopeful that policy, which is meant to be somewhat fluid, can in fact be updated to be more inclusive. I scanned 25 or so AfD discussions earlier, and every single one either was solely based on GNG or had it as a factor. Many of them had more Keeps than Deletes. GNG, or its proper application, needs some help - and if I can make a small difference there, I'll be happy. Thank you for your time!--Concertmusic (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the original proposed-deletion rationale. Wikipedia's role is not to document everything that has ever called itself a journal. Moreover, the article content appears to be mostly copyvio from the journal's own website. There does not appear to be a suitable redirect target. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article needs revision, but is an official publication of the Franciscan Order in Hungary, not some fly-by-night predatory journal. I think there's plenty of room here for the article to be expanded and improved. Korossyl (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Korossyl, since when is it enough for a journal not to be predatory to meet GNG or NJournals? And if there is room for the article "to be expanded and improved", please show us the independent sources that could be used for that. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was responding your comment about anything "calling itself a journal:" this is an official publication of a highly notable organization, so that right there indicates to me legitimate notability. NJournal is not Wikipedia policy, but GNG generally requires outside sources. A cursory Google search turned up at least one article announcing the journal's founding, which I've added to the intro paragraph.

The journal also has listings in databases much more selective than WorldCat or the ISSN catalogue -- the Hungarian Academy of Sciences [42], the Hungarian National Library [43], and Eötvös Loránd University [44]. Do you think it would it help to put these on the wiki page? Korossyl (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The reference that you added comes from the "Ferences Sajtóközpont" (translated: Franciscan Press Center), so is not independent. The "databases" that you list are library catalogs, which really is run-of-the-mill stuff for any academic journal. So none of that contributes to notability, I'm afraid. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would politely disagree. The text was written by the Franciscans, but it's appearing on an unaffiliated website; this is no different than publishing an organization's press release. The release itself is made by the organization, but it is an INDEPENDENT organization that deems it notable enough to publish. As for the catalogues, these are not automatically approved or updated -- listing in them indicates significance. But either way, all these sources are independent of the journal. 17:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Press releases, regardless where published, never contribute to notability. Similarly, a few library catalog entries are not an indication of any notability either. Have a look at the archives of journal-related AFDs (there are two archives, the second one is the most recent one) to see what historically has been used to show notability for journals. --Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Press releases do not indicate notability, but an article published by an independent source absolutely does -- even if it was written by an affiliated person, the fact that another site saw it as important enough to give space to is significant. As for cataloguing, I agree that it can very well be a matter-of-course, but these appearance in these catalogues is not automatic or guaranteed but rather the result of a vetting process. So, I again see this as being an indicator of the notability we're seeking. I'm keeping my vote to "keep." Korossyl (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And I respectfully maintain that your interpretation of these sources is wrong. --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. tl;dr (actually I did but afterwards I wished I had just counted voyes to get to NC. Sportingflyer being persuaded to change tjeir vote took this firmly into "dunno" territory. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 FC Winterthur season[edit]

2014–15 FC Winterthur season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Meets no widely accepted inclusion criteria; not within the criteria of WP:NSEASONS and fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 15:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean, a quick look at the German version shows a well-developed, decently referenced article, so it's probably a notable topic, but the article in its present state is difficult to defend. SportingFlyer T·C 16:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing looks to be mostly to Der Landbote but then via Winterthur's club website. I'm not sure if this counts as a secondary source or not as most of the links are dead so I'm unable to check. Spiderone 17:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources from the season description are from articles of Der Landbote, that's correct. FC Winterthur published those earlier on their own website in the news section - not doing it now anymore tho. For results, transfers and so on the official website of the swiss football league is referenced. Fundriver (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 19:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is correct. The match results are complete and correct. The linked players are correct and the listed yellow and red cards are correct. Okay, there is no introduction text, there is no explaination to the season, there are no texts to the seasons endings, but the details stated are correct. Okay, there is no end of season league table and the cup winners are not mentioned. Okay, to the history of the club's seasons, there are no previous seasons and no following seasons, but the details of this season are correct and with a litle bit of work we could make the article self explanitory. Perhaps I am a little bit biased because I have contributed to the contents within. But, there are very few articles over Swiss football and there seems to be some sort of attack against Swiss football in Wiki over the last few days. Deleting the page would not improve the documentation of Swiss football, but would reduce any sort of couverage, thus making future couverage more difficult. Please leave the page and make additions to improve it. But please don't worry, if the page is deleated, I will continue my contribution to Swiss football anyway. Greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The team didn't play in a fully professional league. Please can you provide sources showing significant coverage to demonstrate that this passes GNG? Also, putting two articles that fall outside inclusion criteria up for a deletion discussion hardly constitutes an attack so please don't cast aspersions. Spiderone 07:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Swiss Challenge league is a professional league - even tho some little clubs have a semi-professional player-base - but Winterthur doesn't count to them. But from the common definition in Switzerland, you consider the Challenge League (as part of the Swiss Football League, which unites the first and second tier leagues) a professional league. Out of this reason, the Challenge League also was allowed to play again quite fast after the lockdown due to the Covid-crisis, while all amateur-leagues were still forbidden. Fundriver (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is why it has to be a fully professional league by Wikipedia standards. As you say second- and third-tier leagues often have a number of smaller clubs. In Norway it's the same. The second-tier league consists of about 4-5 fully professional clubs and 12-13 semi-professional clubs. That makes for a not fully professional league. Geschichte (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true, User:Geschichte. Unlike the standard for players, WP:NSEASONS explicitly doesn't use "fully-professional". It simply says professional. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hello there from Winterthur, the results in the article are all correct. As well I can assure you, that the sources are correct. If you need some short saison description, I can make one in english - even tho german is my mothertongue. Fundriver (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG, please could you provide secondary sources that show significant coverage of this particular Winterthur season? I was not questioning the accuracy of the results but more the notability of the subject. Even leagues as low down as the 11th tier in England have reliable recording of results. The reason they don't have articles is because they generally lack the coverage to pass GNG. Spiderone 12:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Answer Thanks for the imput. As suggested to me, I have copied both pages into my sandbox. But as far as I can see from the imputs to date, there is not going to be a decision, because there are not all that many inputs so far. Again, I just suggest that we keep the articles just in case that there are going to be improvements made from other users who know or find further information. Again, all I am trying to do with my edits, is to increase the coverage of Swiss football. If kept, I can definately add prose, but I am not willing to do so if the article is going to be deleated wthin a couple of days. I wish everybody a very nice Sunday --Huligan0 (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. The article being correct is in no way a justification for it to be kept. Number 57 11:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned, the swiss Challenge League is a professional soccer league - as far I understood, this should be enough for notability. Best regards, Fundriver (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, WP:NSEASONS isn't an exclusionary standard, and the Challenge League does get significant coverage in national newspapers. SportingFlyer T·C 12:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet none of this alleged significant coverage has been found... GiantSnowman 11:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I'm not quite sure what proof needs to be seen, how about: SFL internet or Weltfussball internet. What sort of information should be added? Greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]