< February 07	February 09 >

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Take (Sydney band)[edit]

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

A short-lived band that only produced 2 songs, most sources are dead but even looking through archives I didn't find much. Fails WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the references are IRS. I couldn't find any suitable articles or mentions via a ProQuest database search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers. One article returned in a Google search from The Daily Telegraph looks promising, but it's behind a firewall and I couldn't get to it to investigate further. In any event, one article doesn't satisfy GNG. Cabrils (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as it is now fails WP:BAND and I couldn't find additional sources which show sufficient notability. Suonii180 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. fails WP:BAND. DoctorsHub (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theset[edit]

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

Non-notable Canadian rock band. Natg 19 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced, and claims nothing "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to show sources up front. Bearcat (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 21:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article don't have any citation to justify notability. DoctorsHub (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Taubman[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and certainly WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See no reason to delete. Subject has interesting background particularly considering his role in founding and leading multi-religion multi-ethnic center in Lis Angeles. See no reason to delete. Widely considered leading contemporary Jewish artists. Music on Amazon, iTunes , YouTube and website Craignco.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EK118 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So... The subject has all of their music on sites that have absolutely no barrier for entry and on his personal website? Being "interesting" does not equal notability and the sourcing does not establish notability. This was likely an autobio as the creator was User:Craignco, who was later blocked for promotional edits. Quite frankly, this vanity page should have been speedy deleted years ago. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO as there are currently no reliable sources. I found two articles, one from the LA Times about his work at the Pico Union Project and one from the St Louis Dispatch about his music career, but I do not think this establishes notability. Bigpencils (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by blocked account, amazing this PROMO survived this long. Slywriter (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Kluge[edit]

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

Bit-part actor, producer. No effective references. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 23:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG and does not look like he meets WP:ENT. I could not find any reliable sources that provided significant coverage of the subject. Bigpencils (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB exists for a reason Slywriter (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphane Masala[edit]

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

Starting a discussion at request of User:Paul Vaurie on WT:FOOTY. The concern is that the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: if there is no exception for cup finals for WP:NFOOTY, then this fails WP:NFOOTY. The second question is if this article meets GNG or not. Personally, I'm not sure.
Change to keep. Passes GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. I am surprised there isn't any in-depth coverage given their achievements, but the Cup final aspect does not confer automatic notability. Giant Snowman 11:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say there's enough subject-specific coverage to meet GNG. There's obviously a lot of stuff around the cup run, particularly ahead of the final, but a fair bit does focus on Masala himself, e.g.: [1] in Le Figaro hung on the fact that the club had to pay a fine of €1170 each match because he didn't have the qualifications required to manage in the Championnat, [2] a lengthy interview in Le Parisien, [3] in Goal.com with input from different figures in his past, [4] piece hung on his history as former captain of US Orléans in the regional daily La République du Centre. There's also stuff from his playing days, e.g [5] interview-based piece in the same newspaper from 2013 ahead of his first return to Orléans as a player after 8 years away.

As an aside, Google is truly awful these days. It appears to only supply the first result it comes across for any given domain, and you have to guess whether it'd be worthwhile to do a site-specific search on each individual site. In the relatively recent past, I've done decent-ish research on French players using Google, e.g Franck Julienne, Pierre Lemonnier, but I don't think I'd have the stamina now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Struway2 that there is enough coverage out there, even when limited to online sources. Excellent finds. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources found by Struway2 demonstrate that there is sufficient coverage of Masala to pass GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources above, appears to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG --Kemalcan (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree to keep per Struway2, @Spiderone: This is your nomination, you could withdraw it! heh. Govvy (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2021 (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 Move to Draft:Michael DeShields. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael DeShields[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No senoir debut yet, therefore WP:TOOSOON --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - given that he doesn't yet meet GNG or NFOOTBALL, the article shouldn't be kept but there is a fair chance that he may debut for DC United or Trinidad soon so, for that reason, I'd support draftifying Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - though I believe Michael DeShields is notable in some aspects I do concede that while looking up information on him I have not found him to have played in a professional-level competition or international match yet, which I believe is Wikipedia's threshold for "notability" for a soccer/football player. So I can get behind holding off for now but bring it back if he does play a pro-level match. Pushpaizol (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets both NCOLLEGE and WP:NFOOTBALL through non-routine coverage and sources. Quidster4040 (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- He meets neither. And I assume you meant WP:NCOLLATH which he also fails if you actually read the criteria. --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does not yet meet any WP notability criteria. He may well meet at least WP:NFOOTY soon, but he may not. I would lean towards temporarily leaving a draft copy somewhere instead of complete removal of the article. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Valkyrie: Dawn of the 4th Reich[edit]

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

This article about a film is built on IMDb references. While searching for sources, I have found this piece by IndieWire and a review by a blog called "The War Movie Buff". These are not enough to meet the two professional reviews asked for by WP:NFO. So, I'd say the article should be deleted for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two more, that still might not be enough to pass GNG: [[6]] and [[7]] Kolma8 (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also here [[8]], [[9]]. Kolma8 (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these sources. There seem to have been more reviews than I had originally thought. I believe it still doesn't meet the "reviews by two or more nationally known critics". I'd need something that clearly exceeds the level of a blog to say otherwise. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to delete -- Such works are a variety of non-history, because they tend to be a fictional account of what the writer wished should happen. Counter-factual studies are a legitimate technique for elucidating why what happened did happen, but plain fiction such as this is not. The simple answer to this is that we cannot have an article on every book or film. This (at present) is merely a synopsis, not even a review or something summarising reviews. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree per User:Peterkingiron. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2021 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Livonia High School (New York)[edit]

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

Non-notable school; fails the GNG. De-prodded on the questionable basis that the deletion of American secondary schools "will never be uncontroversial". The only sources provided are the school's website, which isn't independent, and an entry in a government database, which isn't secondary. A WP:BEFORE search reveals only routine coverage of sports, etc. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support No indication of notability. Just existing is not enough. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 22:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral or Merge From the original author. Back in 2013 when I created this article, I was trying to flesh out articles about Secondary Schools in New York State. Back then, articles about Secondary Schools had an automatic right to exist. This was before the 2017 decision that went the other way. See bullet point 3 under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. So anyhow, I got an Excel Spreadsheet of all the Secondary Schools in New York State and went through the list, county by county, and started improving or creating them as stubs. Now, eight years later, no one has found anything notable about this school and the standards have changed. So if it no longer belongs as a stand-alone article, maybe it should go away. On the other hand, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, perhaps this article can become a section within the article about the Town where it is located, Livonia, New York. Arg342 (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have come to realize that secondary schools are not default notable when we consider this on a global scale. The sourcing here is not enough to actually pass GNG. There is no indication that this school is at all even marginally notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2021 (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. We've been through three relists and there isn't consensus about how to apply SNGs to this article, let alone the broader contention of SNGs vs GNG (especially in the case of NCORP). At this point people are a little ornery and talking past each other and there are a lot of options on the table (keep, merge, redirect, delete) and I just don't see a consensus to be had. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InterContinental Miami[edit]

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

Not notable hotel. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: (changed vote, see below) The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. This is a normal hotel, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 15:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC) (ce, to change vote, see below 21:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Benowitz, Shayne (2016-12-15). "InterContinental Miami". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
  The review notes: "Occupying coveted real estate at the foot of the Miami River and Biscayne Bay downtown, the InterContinental is one of Miami’s original luxury business hotels. With its sprawling lobby, Spanish restaurant and buzzy bar, it also attracts leisure travellers and Miami’s post-work crowd."
2. Delollis, Barbara (2012-11-13). "InterContinental Miami debuts younger, hipper look". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2012-12-10. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
  Two related articles:
  1. Delollis, Barbara (2012-11-19). "'Digital canvas' lets landmark Miami hotel go high-tech". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2019-10-14. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
  2. Delollis, Barbara (2012-11-12). "Richard Sandoval's Toro Toro restaurant opens in Miami". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2017-03-23. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
  Information from the articles:
  1. The InterContinental received a $30 million upgrade in 2012.
  2. It is owned by Strategic Hotels & Resorts.
  3. When it was built, it first housed a casino.
  4. It has a new restaurant Toro Toro from the chef Richard Sandoval.
  5. It has "splashy lighting that can change colors" at its front entrance.
  6. The Bayfront Park can be seen from its VIP lounge.
  7. It has two presidential suites. Venus Williams designed both.
  8. Its Metropolis Suite has a "blown-up copy" of Miami Metropolis, Miami's first newspaper.
  9. It has "room-darkening shades".
  10. It has "video screens behind the front desk showing live camera footage of the marina, bay and other nearby areas".
  11. The renovation started in 2009.
  12. It has competition from JW Marriott Marquis and Epic Hotel by Kimpton.
3. Satchell, Arlene (2015-04-26). "Top Large Workplace: InterContinental Miami". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
  Information from the article:
  1. The hotel has over 550 employees.
  2. It is a 641-room hotel.
  3. It is 34 stories.
  4. It is at 100 Chopin Plaza.
  5. Strategic Hotels & Resorts of Chicago is the hotel's owner.
  6. The InterContinental Hotels Group has operated the hotel since 1985.
  7. "For 25 years, InterContinental Miami has been the official home of the popular Orange Drop on New Year's Eve, attracting huge crowds each year. More recently, it's known for the giant images of dancers strutting their moves on two 19-story, 200-foot digital canvases on the building's exterior."
  8. President Ronald Reagan, President Barack Obama, Sharon Stone, Bernadette Peters and Natalie Cole have visited the hotel.
4. Sampson, Hannah (2012-10-05). "An updated InterContinental Miami is set to debut at the end of the month, with dramatic lighting, a new restaurant, and an emphasis on technology. - The hotel's exterior can be lit up in different colors or moving images. The lobby has 18 hanging LCD screens and touchscreen coffee tables". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
  Information from the article:
  1. The article said the InterContinental Miami was "once the biggest and best upscale hotel in downtown Miami".
  2. It has 641 rooms.
  3. It has "welcomed presidents, movie stars, and sports legends over the 30 years since it opened is reinventing itself to the tune of $30 million".
  4. Its two presidential suites, six executive suites, and club lounge were upgraded by Venus Williams' design firm.
  5. It added a pan-Latin restaurant called Toro Toro from the chef Richard Sandoval.
  6. It has a "famous", 70-ton "Spindle" sculpture made by Henry Moore that sits in its "travertine marble lobby".
  7. It is owned by Strategic Hotels & Resorts.
  8. Its upgrades took two years of planning.
  9. The article quotes from a Miami hotel consultant, Scott Brush, saying that the upgrade was required given the competition, "You've got to do something to bring it up. And something more than just repair and replace."
5. Tasker, Fredric. (1982-11-21). "Theodore Gould wants his hotel to equal the Ritz in Paris. New hotel, office tower, a monument to luxury" (pages 1 and 2). Miami Herald. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11. – via Newspapers.com.
  According to this article, the InterContinental Miami was opened in 1982 as the Pavilion Hotel.
  The Miami Herald article includes analysis from an "uninvolved hotel expert", Chase Burritt of Laventhol & Horwath, Coral Gables certified public accountants. The article notes:
  Burritt pointed out that despite its top-of-the-line luxury, Pavilion must compete for such travelers with downtown's new Hyatt, as well as hotels on Key Biscayne and Coconut Grove. "We project demand to grow strongly in 1983," he said, "but not at such a pace that will allow all the hotels to get the kinds of occupancies they'd like." In partial concession to that reality, the Pavilion will open with just 200 of its 636 hotel rooms and two of its seven restaurants, phasing in the rest during the next few months.
6. Sampson, Hannah (2013-11-20). "Hotel seeks 'skyline' dancers - After a year with the same nameless lady dancing on its building, the InterContinental Miami wants to feature local talent". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
7. Walker, Elaine (2012-10-09). "Chef Sandoval opening at Intercontinental Miami". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
8. Marr, Madeleine (2012-11-13). "Venus Williams unveils work at downtown Miami hotel". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
9. Sigale, Merwin (1986-03-11). "'New' hotel: Pavilion switching name to Inter-Continental Miami". The Miami News. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11 – via Newspapers.com.
10. Steinberg, Jim (1985-12-18). "Pavillon manager bullish on future". The Miami News. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11 – via Newspapers.com.
11. Sigale, Merwin (1986-03-11). "Pavillon Hotel going to 'Intercontinental'". The Miami News. Archived from the original on 2021-01-11. Retrieved 2021-01-11 – via Newspapers.com.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Intercontinental Miami to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the above is obviously promotional content, none contains SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Normal local news stories do not support notability. // Timothy :: talk 11:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll keep this short due to the already massive wall of text above that took forever to get through. The hotel receives promotional advertising in some reliable sources. It also receives some local and regional coverage. That does not equate to enough to deem the hotel as notable as per WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: InterContinental Miami is located in Miami, Florida. The hotel received international coverage in a detailed review in The Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper. It received multiple articles in the national source USA Today. It received coverage in the regional newspapers the Miami Herald and the Sun-Sentinel and the local newspaper The Miami News. InterContinental Miami was covered over a period of decades in 1982, 1985, 1986, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016. There are numerous other articles about the hotel in Newspapers.com (search with current name and search with former name) that I have not listed here.
From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, 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 hotel has received sustained substantial coverage in international, national, and regional sources. This strongly establishes notability according to the guideline.
I disagree that the sources are advertising. Many of the sources covered the hotel's financial difficulties which led to its getting sold.
Venus Williams and her design firm worked on the hotel's remodel. President Ronald Reagan, President Barack Obama, Sharon Stone, Bernadette Peters, and Natalie Cole have visited the hotel. The Miami Herald called it "once the biggest and best upscale hotel in downtown Miami". A Miami Herald articles included analysis about the hotel from an "uninvolved hotel expert". InterContinental Miami has been the host for over a quarter-century of the Orange Drop on New Year's Eve which is Miami's version of the Times Square Ball Drop and receives substantial media coverage.
Cunard (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The above provides no sources to backup their claims. Just a mini wall of text with wikilinks and two search lists. The first wall of text shows mentions in announcements, famous guests, routine events, promos, etc are not SIGCOV, this can be seen from the sources you link to. The wikilinks you place above are not SIGCOV. The search result pages do not show SIGCOV. They do not address the subject directly and indepth. No sources showing the subject meets NBUILD, no sources showing the subject meets ORGCRIT. // Timothy :: t | c | a 10:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:Cunard. For example, this one of the sources provided by Cunard is substantial coverage. Deletionist objections seem obstinate, inappropriate, like their minds were made up before any research done or arguments made. --Doncram (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- From my reading, that article relies entirely on quotations from company execs and an anonymous source and information provided by the company. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Can you point to any original/independent opinion/analysis/investigation attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject? Perhaps you'd review both our guidelines and the references again and see if you can understand why some !voted for Deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying that source is a press release, or equivalent. No it is an article with a reporter's byline, with reporter's and the The Miami News' reputation behind it. It presents mostly clearly factual stuff, of regular newsworthy variety, and refers to an unnamed source providing context. Does not appear to be written by the company, at all, as comment implies. --Doncram (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I see below, User:HighKing, that you question assertion of notability, related to meeting wp:NBUILD. The facts of greater than 100 m height, 35 stories, 641 hotel rooms, and maybe also it having been designed by "noted architect Pietro Belluschi" are all assertions of importance. I happen to have worked on many articles about far smaller, less economically important hotels.

Also, hotels are more public than other buildings of their size, have more importance in a way, and have more coverage including ratings and tourist guidebooks and so on, see wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION (essay to which i contributed) for more general view about that.--Doncram (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doncram, I've very little experience with NBUILD. If you're satisfied it passes NBUILD, fine by me. I'm only looking at it through NCORP guidelines and it doesn't meet those notability guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage to satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13].--Pontificalibus 10:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to InterContinental Hotels Group as an alternativve to deletion or Delete as not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Of the four references listed above: this from Miami News relies entirely on quotations from company executives, an "anonymous source" and information available on the company website. It does not contain and independent opinion/analysis/etc and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. This 2nd clipping also from Miami News is entirely based on an interview with the property developer and fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons as above. This next also from Miami News is an article on Gould's business troubles and this hotel gets nothing more than a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally the last is also from Miami News and is a short article on construction progress, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am judging this by WP:NBUILD not WP:NCORP. It's a notable landmark building and the depth of coverage doesn't need to meet the rigors of WP:CORPDETH, simply that required by WP:SIGCOV i.e. more than a trivial mention but need not be the main topic of the source material. ----Pontificalibus 13:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it passes NBUILD either. It doesn't have the status of cultural or national heritage so that only leaves a commercial building which has some significance. What's its significance exactly? There's no mention of "significance" of any sort in the article so its a little weird that you say that you're evaluating this topic on NBUILD. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources by Cunard and asserted by Doncram do demonstrate passing of GNG.Oakshade (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: I have reverted a NAC which fell miles outside the prescribed types of closes allowed. See also associated ANI discussion. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for one more time (boldly, given it's a third relist) due to the flawed process associated with a bad NAC close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to InterContinental Hotels Group as an alternativve to deletion per HighKing above or Delete per my original comment and above. (swiched vote from Delete to Redirect) // Timothy :: talk 21:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources presented above are rewarmed press releases or routine coverage, such as "Hotel seeks 'skyline' dancers - After a year with the same nameless lady dancing on its building, the InterContinental Miami wants to feature local talent". Name can be optionally redirected to InterContinental Hotels Group. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have improved this article and added more content and sources. There are more sources out there not added as user:Cunrad has stated. IMO, this is a popular location that deserves a stand alone page and it meets WP:GNG. (Side note: I actually tried to close this one, but made a mistake to close it as KEEP rather than NO CONSENSUS and it was reverted. It was my first time doing a few of these and I didn't realize my mistakes. Don't worry I have stopped doing closings and resists and I will just stick to Voting.)Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reasoning that you're provided is this is a popular location that deserves a stand alone page and it meets WP:GNG. First off, being a "popular location" is not a reason. Second, "deserves a stand along page" is not a reason. Finally, you say it "meets WP:GNG" whereas relevant SNGs exist such as NCORP and NBUILD so passing GNG is insufficient when an SNG exists. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:HighKing is dead wrong in saying that wp:GNG does not govern. If a topic meets wp:GNG it can have an article, period. Other notability guidelines are meant to be helpful in reasoning about likelihood of sources existing, etc. --Doncram (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doncram, a recent RFC (about to be closed but not closed yet) to decide wording to describe *current* practice says very clearly that the requirements in NCORP are the ones applicable for determining which sources may be used to establish notability when the topic falls under the NCORP SNG criteria. Perhaps you'll now review your !vote seeing as how it is based on an inaccurate understanding of our guidelines? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You conveniently ignored my policy based arguments and pointed out the extra comments I posted. So ignore my extra comments and go with my policy comments. I am also not the only one voting KEEP on this. As I stated there are good arguments made by Cunard, so that is why I voted keep. IMO, it meets WP:GNG Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You made "policy based" arguments? Can you point them out? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they pointed out it meets wp:GNG, which is policy. HighKing is wrong that wp:GNG is not the most important thing. --Doncram (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very sure I'm wrong ... and yet ... it seems I'm not. Also, just FYI, GNG is not "policy" - the hint is in the letters in GNG represent. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure you're wrong. I am not going to be distracted by some current RFC proposing some change (while quick review doesn't suggest it is anything radical, to me). Fundamentally, wp:GNG governs. From the wp:Notability guideline, subject-specific notability guides "are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline':

These subject-specific notability guidelines are generally derived based on verifiable criteria due to accomplishment or recognition in that field that either in-depth, independent sourcing likely exists for that topic but may take time and effort to locate (such as print works in libraries local to the topic), or that sourcing will likely be written for the topic in the future due to the strength of accomplishment (such as winning a Nobel prize). Thus, we allow for the standalone article on the presumption that meeting the SNG criteria will guarantee the existence or creation of enough coverage to meet GNG.

Fine, both GNG and subject-specific notability guidelines are "just" guidelines. I guess there is no "policy" anywhere; "guidelines" (with clear hierarchy that GNG > subject-specific stuff) are the highest level stuff available, and I am glad Expertwikiguy is paying attention there. --Doncram (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're still wrong. But hey, I love the way you're not going to be distracted by a lil ol' RfC which is deciding on the wording to replace the words you're referring to because the words you're referring to were added by an admin without consensus. Your notion that all SNGs are "subservient" to the GNG is dead wrong (to use your own words) - I mean, there were SNGs around well before the GNG was even a thought in people's heads. At least we've received clarity that you're not really applying guidelines, just your own (ill-informed) opinion on what you hope is in the guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to InterContinental Hotels Group per WP:GNG *sources do not address the topic in detail. --Kemalcan (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except for all the sources that address the topic in detail. --Doncram (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But fail NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP doesn't matter. Meeting GNG suffices. HighKing disagrees, I disagree with them. Anyhow, this is a significant building / public attraction / hotel / geographical feature / feature of internet and offline tourist guides etc. As I said about some other building complex before, the movement of materials in construction of this was big enough to affect the rotation of the earth, and the building and people in it have measurable effect on the earth's gravitational field in that area. --Doncram (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP is the applicable guideline for companies/organizations and (surprise!) it does matter. Maybe to you it doesn't, maybe because you don't understand how to apply the guidelines, maybe because it shows how the topic fails. Fine. You do you. Everyone else will follow the actual applicable guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP is obviously not the right the guideline - the article does not say "InterContinental Miami is a hotel business operating out of the former Pavillon Hotel building on Miami waterforont" or "the business invest $30 million in upgrading the building". No, it says stuff like "Designed in 1982 by noted architect Pietro Belluschi" and "Height: 366ft" and "The InterContinental as seen from Bayfront Park"...all staetements than can only be applied to buildings and not hotel operating companies.----Pontificalibus 15:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And that's why has has the "IHG Hotels and Resorts" banner at the bottom listing all of IHG's purportedly "notable" hotels. Sure. And that's why the word "hotel" is interchangable with the word "building" and not at all associated with a commercial profit-making business. Sure.... HighKing⁺⁺ 22:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Since there are many InterContinental Hotels, this article should probably be merged into InterContinental. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagmar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage. The 2008 AfD only resulted in trivial coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with the nom. Also, the 2008 discussion should've been closed as delete - it had three deletes and only a single weak keep on the other side anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wario-Man ^talk 14:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joakim Hagabakken[edit]

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

Technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL due to two brief substitute appearances in the 2001 Tippeligaen, which is currently on our list of 'fully professional leagues' (despite not being fully professional at the time). Fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Valeranga one of the strongest and most definitely professional teams in a professional league. Abcmaxx (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it doesn't look like he got any game time for Vålerenga Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total and complete failure of both GNG and football notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only bare minimum 'database' coverage found in searches; some of the clubs that he played for are indeed notable but there is nothing to suggest that Hagabakken is a notable enough individual to pass WP:GNG in his own right Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoVoteMiami[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe that the reasons I gave in the earlier AfD back in June. that was closed with no consensus, are still valid; "Does not meet WP:ORG. This just tells about the organization and what it does much like a brochure put out by the organization would. The sources given are not significant coverage in independent reliable sources; one is an interview with the leader of the organization, two others simply cite factual information, and the Library source is just a link to its website. This has gone back and forth between draft and main space with the creator moving it to mainspace twice. The creator(who validly changed their username) states that they are a supporter of the organization though not associated with it and wants to spread the word about what they do. Helping people vote is a worthy cause, but Wikipedia is not for telling the world about worthy causes." The only significant change since then has been discussion of Florida's allowing felons to vote, but no sources have been provided that give significant coverage to this organization's work. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will again explain the sources:

cites the mere fact that this organization is registered with the State of Florida
cites a Q&A from the DOJ regarding the National Voter Registration Act
cites (once the reference to the interview was removed) that the Mayor of Miami supports the goals of the organization
seems to link to a registration form
cites the existence of the Miami Public Library system
simply explains felon voting in Florida 331dot (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Each recommendation received from wiki editors/moderators are understood and adjustments are continually made to meet guidelines. The Govotemiami page exceeds the expectations and requirements when compared to many other wiki pages previously mentioned which are not under attack like this govotemiami wiki page. Aggressively targeting govotemimai wiki page for deletion displays a bias as other wiki pages who are in clear violation of wiki terms/guidelines are allowed, approved, and receiving a pass on their self-promotion, providing false information, and no relevant cites. While researching wikipedia to better understand why this article is selected for deletion, I came across several articles on the internet about wikipedia being systemic bias along gender, racial, political and national related topics / articles and this seems to be the situation with this article as previously pointed out other political and causes wikipedia is selectively permitting to violate guidelines while targeting govotemiami.

The GoVoteMiami article presents a 1) neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge 2) in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". 3) is not argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing. Independent sources have been added and primary sources or suggested primary sources including items which may have appeared promotional have been removed. Current Sources and cites include 1) Independent of the subject 2) Reliable 3) Verifiable according to the Wikipedia, General notability guidelines. Cites and sources are Independent sources based on Wikipedia guidelines. An extreme effort has been made to follow the wikipedia guidelines for publishing the article. Any sources which wiki editors believed to be a primary source or promotional has been removed. This is not a paid or promotional article. It focus on facts and verifiable information. This article meets the same guidelines and standards as other non-profits which are and have been active articles on Wikipedia for years. This article should not be deleted because of a Wikipedia volunteers bias regarding non-profits, elections and opinion of voting in America or due to party affiliation in Florida. This article is a about a bipartisan, Non-Profit, written without author opinion solely based on facts. As author, I hope wikipedia volunteers are able to also have an unbiased approach.

The sources given include coverage from independent reliable sources;

 Miami Hearld, Independent Article
Foundation Providing recognition and detail about govotemiami.
islandernews.com/ 2 independent articles

https://www.keynews.org/ independent city and community news article Independent Article from florida news agency • Information provided is also referenced under references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonscott239 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Jonscott239 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)jonscott239[reply]

Jonscott239 Wikipedia has over 6 million articles and only several thousand regular contributors. It is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. That does not mean other inappropriate articles should be permitted. You are welcome to point out other inappropriate articles so those can be addressed, we can only address what we know about, and we could use help.

Articles must do more than state facts. They must summarize what independent reliable sources with in depth, significant coverage have chosen to state. None of the offered sources have such coverage. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has over 6 million articles and only several thousand regular contributors and in the whole mess of inappropriate and non-compliant wikipedia articles within the 6 million, this article is aggressively being targeted for deletion even though I am working hard to comply, follow guidelines, and make adjustments based on editor/mod feedback and comments. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this non-profit is being unfairly targeted including attempts to quickly submit for deletion as I continue to work on improving and adjusting to your requests. The wikipedia requirements which are detailed and clear, this article follows. Some verbiage in the guidelines which happens to be (subjective) is being used as an excuse to silence and delete this article. With the 6 million articles and limited man power, the time being spent on not approving and deleting this article is taking time away from protecting the community from the many fake, misleading, and promotional wiki pages in clear violation. No need to be angry or fight. I'm simply trying to follow rules, guidelines and feedback and in return have been under attack with each edit and adjustment made to this article. Jonscott239 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)jonscott239[reply]

Jonscott239 Saying that you are working to comply concedes my point that the article is not compliant. If that's the case, then this should be in draft space and submitted through Articles for Creation when ready; there you can take all the time you need to work on it before submitting without fear of criticism until it is reviewed. That would completely satisfy me if you agreed. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where this hostility is coming from. What I said does not concede your point. Reading the guidelines I am compliant. If I need to elaborate further to not have my words incorrectly interpreted for the purpose denying this articles publication, What I am sayings is that - I am respectfully "trying to comply" with "you" and "editor" suggestions to satisfy and comply with your specific concerns and suggestions. I have no desire to fight and do not see the need for only you to specifically be targeting this article and leaving comments the 2nd something is changed or edited. Take a breath. We are all a community who cares..... Once again, with 6mil articles you mentioned, you are spending a lot of time and hours targeting this article in an aggressive way. Wikipedia states that being administrator does not give you any Sergeant-like authority and is not an entitlement. Further wikipedia states Admins must follow all of Wikipedia policies (such as the three-revert rule) and uphold consensus and a neutral point of view. You also do not have to always have the last word and consistently trying to prove points and there is no reason have an emotional approach and to take disagreements personal. Jonscott239 (talk)jonscott239 — Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you are getting hostility from; I'm not hostile or upset or anything bad. I've never claimed to want the last word nor am I taking anything personally. I'm just here to have a civil discussion about this subject. No more, no less. I am not sure why you bring up 3RR, I haven't crossed that line. I'm not trying to prove a point, but this discussion should rely on logical arguments based in Wikipedia guidelines, which I have tried to do. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware I have no more authority than you. I haven't sought to assert authority. Would you like to respond to my proposal above? 331dot (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be a non-notable organisation. The article also appears to have a promotional tone, and while I know that's not a reason to delete (I'm not suggesting it should be deleted for that), I just want to point out that there are other problems with the article that would need to be dealt with if it isn't deleted. Seagull123 Φ 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: would benefit from some more uninvolved input given at least one user's strenuous objections to deletion and prior no consensus close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:NORG, specifically WP:ORGDEPTH. Further, author of the article that is BLUDGEONING this discussion is clearly a WP:SPA whose level of WP:ADVOCACY is approaching WP:NOTHERE. He has made no edits outside the direct topic of the article at hand, either with his current username or his past username Jonscottcorp. 174.254.192.213 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. If you suspect socking, I'd suggest you open a sock investigation. Aasim (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome Aasim The user is not suggesting socking, the creator of the draft legitimately changed their username. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources doesn't establish WP:NORG. Setreis (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riya Sharma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

possibly WP:TOOSOON but this is a non-notable photographer which is only sourced to a piece from an awarding org (whose award itself is not notable) and a puff piece from Asian Voice. The rest of the sources that were in the external link list are largely unreliable, brand pieces/pr CUPIDICAE💕 20:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much all of the coverage I could find is clearly paid for. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm finding tons of social media, but nothing in the way of sigcov in reliable sources to substantiate notability. Fails WP:GNG Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NARTIST fail. Possibly (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the "awards" she supposedly has won are pay-to-win or don't exist. There is no such thing as the "21st century art book of the year" award, for example. Vexations (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet any relevant SNG and has no coverage in reliable, independent sources so clearly fails GNG. This article just goes to show that the word 'influencer' is one of the most overused (and misused) words of the century. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No reliable, independent sources... --Kemalcan (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Setreis (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Vanity article. RationalPuff (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. a non notable artist. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per User:GLP93. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 03:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt for around 2-3 months. Article most probably paid, or an auto-bio. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 23:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tumiso Rakgare[edit]

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

I don’t see any criterion from WP:NPOL met. A WP:BEFORE search links me to user generated sources sources such as their Facebook page. Celestina007 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets NPOL as a nationwide elected official. Cabinet members are inherently notable. Besides, there are many local sources available via a quick Google News source. This source describes him as a MP.--User:Namiba 20:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source you just provided above is unreliable as they lack editorial oversight. Could you be so kind as to provide to this AFD at least three reliable sources that proves he is notable? The source even used in the article boldly states that it is a press release so I’m not sure what you are talking about. The criterion(SNG) for politicians are well outlined in NPOL & he clearly doesn’t satisfy any of the two criteria & lastly he wasn’t voted in he was given a ministerial appointment. Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that the source of the article is unreliable. It is the official website of the government of Botswana, which determines the cabinet members. It surely is primary and secondary sources are preferable. However, a cabinet member of a national cabinet passes WP:NPOL ("The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians (...) who have held (...) national (...) office"), so Keep. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tristan Surtel, yes, you are correct my friend but bare in mind that NPOL states that they are “presumed” to be notable & not “guaranteed” to be notable. A google search of him shows they aren’t notable as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misinterpretation of the use of "presumption" in NPOL ... it's as in the presumption of innocence, the burden is to prove otherwise. A simple check of the Botswana Parliament website shows he's an MP. --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ministers are also MP's excluding those specially elected by the president. See the document referenced on the article.DownTownRich (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This meets NPOL because this a a minister and a politician who will be serving for the next four year. This article is part of information about Botswana which is highly missing from Wikipedia because the media here publish mostly using print. See other articles similar to Tumiso Rakgare -> Mpho Balopi, Peggy Serame, Kenneth Matambo, Thapelo Matsheka. You find out most editors might have information to add but there are no references which is key to Wikipedia that is why you find these articles at a minimum. Myself I have been trying to make this information available as I have created Government of Brunei, Government of Botswana, Botswana Communications Regulatory Authority and more which can be found here — Preceding unsigned comment added by DownTownRich (talk • contribs)
Comment If the information is missing and unable to be cited, how does this pass WP:V? Bigpencils (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject obviously meets WP:NPOL criterion 1 - he is a minister. There's also enough coverage: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Although the mentions are rather passing, they prove he indeed is a minister. Less Unless (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article needs improvement — but he clearly holds an WP:NPOL-passing role. The question of whether sources exist or not is quite separate from the question of whether we have actually found and used all of the sources or not: cabinet ministers get coverage, that's a given. Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of the Botswana Parliament, meets NPOL.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NPOL as a member of the Botswana Parliament. --Enos733 (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pop Smoke discography (non-admin closure). D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 22:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive the Boat[edit]

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

Kyle Peake was wanting to take the article to AFD. Saying it lacked reliable resources. I did it myself so he wouldn’t go through the trouble. It is up to the community to decide to fate of the article. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I never said that it lacks reliable sources; if you go back, I actually only noted the small amount of sources. Take a look at WPN:Songs – this song not only has a very small amount of sources, but it also failed to chart, receive any awards, nor has any notable live performances, evidently. --:Kyle Peake

Kyle Peake he was never able to perform the song live because he was murdered 2 months after the release.

Redirect - article at hand fails WP:GNG, and the above mentioned project notability guideline for songs. BEFORE shows nothing better. Pro tip for the article creator: interviews with the artist do not show notability for either himself or his work. At best, WP:TOOSOON. The page at hand should be redirected to the artist's article and only recreated when enough independent sources are available.

174.254.192.213 (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pop Smoke discography. While there appears to be some coverage on this song, I do not believe it has received a significant amount of coverage. However, there is limited coverage and this is a viable search term so I would think this would be better suited as a redirect rather than an outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pop Smoke discography This fails per WP:NSONGS, which requires significant third-party coverage. HĐ (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also personally note to the editor, and any other Music-related editor, although it is tempting to create articles on songs of your favorite artists, it is not always a case of notability. We have had quite a few AFDs in the past on this matter i.e. this, this). Make sure the songs do have significant third-party and non-trivial coverage (i.e. independent of album reviews / press interviews / radio briefings). HĐ (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pop Smoke discography Not really his most popular song. I agree that this should be redirected. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pop Smoke discography. Lack of coverage. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pop Smoke discography. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to WPI Engineers football. (non-admin closure) — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 05:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2016 WPI Engineers football team[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. WPI played in Division III -- the lowest level recognized by the NCAA. Even at the Division III level, the 2016 WPI team was not exceptional -- not ranked and not among the teams participating in the Division III playoffs. Cbl62 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to WPI Engineers football: Usual outcome of a DIII season is deletion, and further DIII seasons all could be likely uncontroversially redirected as alternatives to deletion and valid search terms. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is the answer here. I appreciate the enthusiasm of the article creator!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above as a viable alternative to deletion per WP:ATD and WP:NSEASONS. Smartyllama (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by TomStar81, CSD A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Also salted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kritn ajitesh[edit]

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

I have reworded some of the phrases so that this can escape a speedy deletion for being promotional. Still, there is no sign of meeting WP:NACTOR or any other SNG; looks like another Jack of all trades, master of none. This Forbes India is marked as paid for and the only other sources I could find were a blacklisted News Patrolling source and this which also have a strong smell of promo. I don't believe he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG but if better sources are found, please ping me. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per Spiderone's rationale, I too do not see how NACTOR &/ GNG are satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chance to give modification - I really don't know that this is one of the blacklisted News Patrolling source. And I am already mentioned that I don't have any connection with the person directly or indirectly. I just found few resources on him, and update the page with the resources. I Will not put any other so called Blacklisted site ever. Just give me a chance to modified the content once please. Thank you. Cyclopxx (talk) 2:00, 9 February 2021 (IST)

This discussion will last for at least seven days which should be more than enough time to find at least WP:THREE sources showing that he is notable Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt – it is not a coincidence that Kritn Ajitesh is salted; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kritn. --bonadea contributions talk 21:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt As per above explained for voilating wikipedia guidelines. Setreis (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. RationalPuff (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per nominator. Non notable actor. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When the person's name is not capitalized properly in the article's title, be suspicious. His supporters tried to evade the WP:SALT process by screwing around with the title, and multiple times by the looks of it. Meanwhile, in fairness the guy has gotten some media coverage, but it is most likely paid promotions as pointed out by the nominator. Good luck to him on his promotional blitz, but Wikipedia will not be a part of it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt undisclosed paid-for-spam. GSS ^💬 19:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt Undisclosed paid-for-spam per GSS. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator has now declared their paid relationship with the subject. --bonadea contributions talk 16:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's disclosed paid-for spam now. :) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :-) I just wanted to make it clear to any editors who might come to this discussion and only see the creator's claim that there was no payment involved. --bonadea contributions talk 19:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wEaK spEedY deLETe pre n0m.--Alcremie (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete and salt per Bonadea's comment above, and GSS. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2021 (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. As Nosebagbear said, "It would also be beneficial if the delete !votes could clarify if they are specifically opposed to merging as an alternative, should that option move towards a consensus" - but that didn't happen. Since the final week has one each of keep, merge and delete, plus an argument to avoid, I can't see a consensus emerging. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centre of Canada[edit]

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

Everything has a centre. No notability to the "centre of Canada", no encyclopediac significance, could be handled as a line in a geography article. Wtshymanski (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While other countries have articles for their geographic centers, this one does not seem to reference any outside coverage or allude to any significance. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Geographic centre of Canada and expand; I don't see any issue with this article, and as the second largest country in the world, this definitely could use documentation. Nate • (chatter) 06:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of extreme points of Canada (which also includes "significant points"). We Canadians are rather indifferent to this notion for some reason, so not a lot of media notice. Besides, Torontonians will tell anyone who will listen that their city is the centre. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think this article is rather silly, but it seems to meet GNG per [14] and [15]. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is so special about the centre of Canada compared with anywhere else? (Clue: nothing whatsoever) If this article is justified then there needs to be 194 companion articles (as of January 2021^[update]) for the centre of every other country on the planet (for consistency, of course). 109.155.148.247 (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there aren't exactly 194 yet — but per Category:Geographical centres, there aren't "none", either. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm definitely not convinced that this is really necessary as a standalone article, and agree that it would be much better handled as a few lines in a more general Canadian geography article, but there are numerous comparable examples for other countries in Category:Geographical centres — and after having perused them, I can state categorically that very, very few of those articles are in any better shape, or show much stronger evidence of "significance", or have much better referencing to support them, than this. So while I'd support a consensus that they're almost all unnecessary and poorly referenced, and could almost all do with being merged into broader geography articles rather than continuing to stand alone anymore, I can't support singling the Canadian version out as somehow uniquely less notable than the others. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of extreme points of Canada. Looking at the other articles in the category, most have a monument of some sort at the location, so it could be considered an article about that rather than just the geographic point. This does have a sign board, but a merge is still quite reasonable. Reywas92^Talk 20:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination doesn't seem to understand the concept as "Everything has a centre" misrepresents the issue. There are a variety of ways of determining the centre and the page in question lists a selection of these for Canada, which appear to be based on expert work done by others. The rest seems to be WP:UNENCYC which is a personal opinion and argument to avoid. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator This encyclopedia is supposed to be about notable items. Having been to the sign currently depicted in the article, I am confident that the article has not overstated the notability of the latitudinal centre of Canada, at any rate; there is nothing observable about this area that makes it more notable than any other wheat field between Thunder Bay and Calgary. An arbitrary mathematical operation carried on on arbitrarily chosen points does not make for notability. I doubt the other "centres" of Canada re any more notable. This sign isn't even in the right spot, according to some. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I would favour a subsequent merge to List of extreme points of Canada, subject to editorial consensus. AFD is a very poor forum for constructive editing so I do not think AFD should mandate any particular merge. In my view there is no need to alter the title of the target. Keep the redirect so it can remain in Category:Geographical centres. Every country has a capital but that does not mean we should reduce information about capitals to a single line. The solution to the problem of some countries not yet having centroid information is to add the information, not to delete what we already have. It is not true that "this encyclopedia is supposed to be about notable items". Each article should be about a notable topic and other other information may be included in articles on broader topics. Thincat (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although certain keep (or keep-equivalent) participation does not seem clearly policy based, the current 3-way split makes closing currently not warranted. It would also be beneficial if the delete !votes could clarify if they are specifically opposed to merging as an alternative, should that option move towards a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it has reliable coverage featuring it as the main topic, such as [16] (from AleatoryPonderings's comment) and [17] (currently in the External Links section). As for List of extreme points of Canada, it does not strike me as an appropriate home; in plain language a centre is not an "extreme point". Adumbrativus (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of extreme points of Canada. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Toronto is of course the cultural, financial and center everything important in Canada and the article doesn't mention it. Seriously we have never talked about the "centre of Canada" at school here and we don't attach much importance to the subject otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in any way. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2021 (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 10:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Calcutta Quran Petition[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A self published book by author owned publishing company, lacking third party RS coverage and critical reviews. Fails all the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT. Article largely unsourced or linked to other self published sources. Some refs are discussing the incident, not the book. Tagged for notability issue for a month. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2011-08 no consensus

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given a lack of further comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep as the book (or the chain of events itself) looks to be notable. There may not be ready references available online as it happened in 1980s India. However, the article contains important information and I cannot think of a reason to delete it. The book seems to be there in quite a few libraries. Although religious conflicts are common in India, it is relatively uncommon in West Bengal compared to other states. This book/event seems to be a contrary example. At the moment, I would prefer to keep the article. Edit: I found a reference. There is also a mention here, but I cannot download the pdf.--DreamLinker (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honeysuckle, Kentucky[edit]

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

I have absolutely no idea how we handle this sort of situation against WP:GEOLAND, so this is really a test nomination more than anything. I can see a case for this both to be kept and deleted, and this nomination is just out here to test to see what consensus for this sort of place is.

In this case, both the GNIS entry for the community and for the post office are sourced to Rennick's Kentucky place names field work. However, Rennick describes Honeysuckle as a post office in Charlie Marshall's store and states that it was only a post office, no accompanying community. Rennick does say that the Honeysuckle post office served a pretty broad area. I ran a further WP:BEFORE, and found a number of passing mentions of Honeysuckle, a few references to the C. G. Marshall store at Honeysuckle, and a number of references to people being "of" Honeysuckle. I also found official post office publications that say that postmaster Marshall was paid about $17 in 1894 but over $31 in 1897. However, all of these references are only passing mentions, and don't describe anything besides the store actually being at Honeysuckle. Topos go back to the 1920s and show a loose scatter of buildings throughout a wide area, but no cluster indicative of a community and the name Honeysuckle never appears on the maps. So the only source actually describing Honeysuckle I've been able to find describes it as a loosely-defined area around a post office in somebody's store. But the number of passing mentions indicates that there was evidently a Honeysuckle area. From all indications, this was not a community proper, but a loosely defined neighborhood served by a post office in somebody's store.

WP:GEOLAND is one of the vaguer SNGs. I can see a case for this to be kept, and I can see a case where this is ruled to fail WP:GEOLAND as well. My indication is to think that this doesn't qualify as a legally recognized populated place per GEOLAND #1, but rather more as a loosely defined neighborhood. GEOLAND does not give clear guidance on edge cases like this, so I think it's good to establish some sort of precedent on how we handle these. I don't think WP:GNG is met, as Rennick's single paragraph is the only thing that probably falls under significant coverage, as the other mentions are really passing. Hog Farm _Talk 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hog Farm. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a lot of places like this in Kentucky and other states. A wide scattering of homes that picked up their mail at the same general store for a few years is not automatically equivalent to a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above reasoning by Hog Farm and Reywas92. Setreis (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One sentence, and no proof of notability. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2021 (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. Consensus to keep per WP:GEOLAND, article has significantly improved since deletion nomination. (non-admin closure) — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 05:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fort John, California[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND as it is not a legally-recognised settlement, or a WP:GNG-passing non-legally recognised settlement. Only one reference is cited, Durham, which the creator has systematically misrepresented in hundreds of articles. Created as part of a campaign of mass-creation of stub articles in 2009. Creator has waived the right to be notified. FOARP (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Described here as an "early and populous town" although it was evidently unlocatable and barely known by 1947. This calls it a combined church and schoolhouse. Hog Farm _Talk 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable that that article is entirely concerned with failing to find it, and that some of the people consulted haven't even heard of it. The second article doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV as it's a bare mention. Still a WP:GEOLAND fail. FOARP (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm inclined to view this as probably non-notable. I'll finish up my sourcing search later, but it's not looking promising. Hog Farm _Talk 20:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even when in searching a 19th-century Amador County history I found online, there was no significant coverage of this place. Most of the coverage I could find was related to a structure near Fort Laramie in Wyoming. There just doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage of this place to support an article. As discussed above, one of the two sources linked above is not significant coverage, and the other is simply about the location of Fort John being unfindable. Hog Farm _Talk 22:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added some sources. It is referenced in works on Amador County history. It was briefly populated around 1850-51, with some mining occurring later in the decade. Also found references in 1850s Amador County newspapers. Note: Amador wasn't created until 1854, so there may be more sources referencing it in Calaveras County. Definitely was a recognized populated community, albeit briefly.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess flip me to Not sure, leaning keep given Milowent's new references? There's no evidence here that it was legally recognised (that would require incorporation) and the fact that it is described as only having been inhabited a year really makes me think it was just a camp. But the number of references and the length of some of them makes me think it might be a WP:GNG pass all the same, and hence a WP:GEOLAND pass. The creator described lots of places as being settlements which weren't, but this doesn't mean that all of them weren't settlements and I congratulate Milowent on their excellent research. FOARP (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reconsidering, FOARP. I enjoy some of these geography AFDs as a challenge, and I can appreciate why it was nominated in the form it was in before.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized populated place. Note that there is no consensus whatsoever as to the meaning of "legally recognized" in that guideline - it could range from "not an illegal encampment" to "a fully chartered town". However it's clear form the articles we keep on unincorporated communities that having recognition in official sources such as maps that the places is an established settlement is sufficient for us to have an article on it. Anyway, regardless of this argument the current sourcing in the article satisfies WP:GNG.----Pontificalibus 09:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"legal recognition" clearly means "recognised by law". There are only a few ways in which a community can actually be recognised by law (i.e., have a law passed recognising them) and incorporation/chartering is the obvious one. Saying "legal recognition" means "not illegal" is clearly a stretch. All the same I don't disagree about WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The non-notable places we have been rightly deleting that might seem similar to this are places which never were inhabited by a community: isolated ranches, railroad sidings, undefinable names on a map, temporary post offices, and the like. This was an actual village. If it was inhabitedt oday, there would be no question but thatwe would keep it. Once notable, always notable , because WP is a permanent encyclopedia .
Keep. Sources now present in the article (which, admittedly, may have been added after this AFD opened) demonstrate significant coverage of the location. Furthermore, I also consider this meet the requirements of GEOLAND, though as shown above there seems to be some variation in how people read those requirements...DocFreeman24 (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to keep based on new sources per WP:HEY. Hog Farm _Talk 18:48, 15 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yukika Sohma[edit]

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

Only notable as a founder of a company with no Wikipedia article.–Cupper52^Discuss! 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person was a well known peace activist for decades, known in particular for her work in relation to land mines and refugees. It has no bearing on her notability whether or not a company she founded has a wikipedia article. That is not a valid reason for deletion, nor is the fact that the article does not currently include the available sourcing that exists. After a 5-minute Google search finding lots of hits, before even attempting to do a news article search. For example: two obituaries (unpaid content) in the Japan Times [18] and The Sunday Times UK [19]; other coverage: [20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25] - Netherzone (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG, one WP:BEFORE thing nominators can do with people from non-English speaking countries is to look at their language wikipedia, checking the Japanese wikipedia we find a well developed article with plenty of references that show why Yukika is wikinotable - see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Furseth[edit]

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

Passes WP:NFOOTBALL due to a single 17-minute substitute appearance in an allegedly 'fully professional league' in 2013. Is still beavering away in the lower leagues but, taken as a whole, the coverage does not seem to pass the WP:GNG threshold. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing found in this search suggests he can pass GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 10 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Z. Altshuler[edit]

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

Clear-cut case of person notable for one event, sadly his passing. Information in article mainly based on obituaries from primary sources, including a paid obituary listing that appeared in the New York Times. Article also created by user now banned for UPE. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know the user who created the page was banned for undisclosed paid editing and violating the TOU, this article looks notable to me. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The New York Times obituary appears to be a listing paid for by the family, but the Dallas Morning News one seems not [26]. And wiki-notability would not be based on his death, but on his career, per WP:PROF. A Google Scholar search finds at least six publications by him with triple-digit citation counts, so a WP:PROF#C1 pass looks possible. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, while the article creator was blocked for UPE, I'm not sure whether the UPE extended to this article (the discussions leading up to the block seem to be about other things). Perhaps the blocking admin Bilby can weigh in. XOR'easter (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi. Sorry, but yes - this article was also UPE. The job ad was posted on 19 January. I didn;t focus on this one, though, as my focus was on the medical material that the editor was being paid to post. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for clarifying! From the User Talk page, I couldn't tell one way or the other. XOR'easter (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is absolutely WP:NOTBLP1E and probably one of the stranger 1E claims I've seen; "obituary as source" does not mean "notable only for death" (obituaries serve as quite a convenient summary of professional and biographical information). Clear NPROF pass. The origin of the article being unfortunate doesn't spell its end. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cupper52. Steam5 (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would say he does not pass PROF C1 due to his below-average credentials in the context of a very high-citation, high-publication field. Among the 60+ coauthors (with 10 or more publications) of his three highest-cited and three most recent papers according to Scopus, I've calculated the median, average, and Altshuler's values for a few parameters: Total citations: med: 6390, avg: 13849, A: 5035; Total publications: med: 117, avg: 191, A: 64; h-index: med: 35, avg: 45, A: 25. However, his faculty positions and professional appointments as head of various national organizations likely push him into weak notability through other PROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per JoelleJay and Cupper52, ignoring potential UPE by past editors involved in the article's creation. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Freeman (actress)[edit]

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

Possible non-notable actress. Has been tagged as non-notable actress since September 2017. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tagged for WP:N since 2017, and it’s only reference is to IMDb. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. a non notable actress. Lack of independent and reliable references. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Meinhold[edit]

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

Routine coverage, and assistant coaches aren't automatically notable. Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Deprodded because he's on the Mets staff, but again, that doesn't meet NBASEBALL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NBASE #4: Have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager in one of the above-mentioned leagues. If he's a coach for the Mets, he meets NBASE. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Muboshgu, you're correct. However, he's not a coach on the Mets. He's an assistant coach. Therefore he doesn't qualify under that SN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assistant coaches are a newer thing in MLB, but they are still coaches on the team's coaching staff. They count. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Muboshgu, they've been around for at least 5 years, so yes, comparatively speaking, they are new, and newer than when the SN was written. Assistant coaches are usually not included (e.g. WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NBASKETBALL). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Onel5969, the only difference between baseball and those sports you included in your argument is that in baseball the position is far more higher-ranking. If let's say a pitching coach was fired from a team, then it's quite possible the assistant would be hired as the replacement. Therefore a team could hire a new coach on the spot without having to go directly to the minor league system. This is also true for the assistant hitting coaches. It helps teams save time by not making dozens of replacements within the farm system for the same pitching coach job. And since they are now considered coaches on the big league staff, even as assistant coaches, the notability is sound. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He's on the staff of the Mets. Listed on the team's website. That's notable enough. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has reliable independent sources covering Meinhold in reasonable depth (e.g. [27] and [28]). The coverage cannot be dismissed simply as "routine". Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage does not apply anyway as Meinhold is not an event or a person known only for a particular event. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2021 (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. Including the comments from Sadads, the arguments not to delete the article are stronger, and only seriously challenged by the nominator. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1Lib1Ref[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a footnote in Wikipedia history with little to nothing interesting to say about it. Coverage on WP:BEFORE is sparse and overwhelmingly promotional; coverage in the article includes a frankly masturbatory number of promotional primary sources. At the very least, this should be in projectspace. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an extreme example of navel gazing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG, as it did last time round, when the AfD was closed with the summary The consensus is that significant coverage exists about this topic in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

I read the last-round AfD prior to nominating, and I didn't find the arguments particularly convincing. Some of the claims (e.g. "this is more notable than a weak NFOOTBALL pass") are cases of things changing since last round (weak NFOOTBALL passes are de facto no longer considered notable); the most serious keep argument actively admitted it was borderline and mostly showed trivial or promotional coverage. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the multiple reliable sources already cited in the article, I found the following additional sources with a quick Google News search:

This article was up for AFD 3 years ago and passed relatively easily at the time. Since then more sources (like the ones identified above) have come out. I have no interest in WP naval gazing but there's no policy against Wikipedia related articles and the sources here seem like "significant coverage" to me. DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as one of the principle organizers over the years, I have quite a conflict of interest on this so won't weigh in on the actual decision. However, also -- there is an increasing body of library-practice scholarship about the role #1lib1ref has played for the library and Wikipedia space (i.e. [29] or [30] -- see Google scholar search this search) and for derivative initiatives (i.e. CITENLM) . I would hope any move to delete would minimally up-merge the content into a larger "Wikipedia and Libraries" article (which doesn't yet exist) -- which I am kindof surprised hasn't been written yet considering the amount of professional documentation we have. And speaking as an admin that occasionally closes other discussions -- any time you open a deletion discussion opened with an insult like "masturbatory number of promotional primary sources" your whole argument 10x weaker because its designed to provoke emotional response from other participants, Sadads (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My language came from frustration, yes; I apologise for any offense taken. I'm not here to demean your work on the project, just as people AfDing any article on any other topic aren't out to harm its subjects. There is no difference between this matter and the organizer of any other event turning up to an AfD on that event's article. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was agreed to be kept during the previouos AfD. Per reliable sources in the previouos AfD and above, the article is still good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order, the previous AfD was:

An undisclosed creator !vote that read, in full, "Clearly meets GNG; the nom needs to find a better search engine"
A statement that significant events related to Wikipedia are notable, with no assertation as to how or why this specific event would be significant
The "borderline keep" I previously mentioned -- a good and serious attempt to find actual sources -- that demonstrated a combination of local coverage of "county librarian serves community" and WMF-based sources
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-violating non-sequitur about WP:NFOOTBALL
Comment-slash-redirect-!vote
Delete !vote
Speedy keep just-a-vote that invoked WP:SNOW for some reason
Keep !vote that added two sources -- a good move -- except the sources in the article, three years later, are terrible

This is not an enticing selection of "things to refer to in the previous AfD". I'm not exactly a deletionist, to say the least, and I looked at that and went "there is no other subject where the majority of these keeps would be considered viable arguments". Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: from WP per John Pack Lambert, but move to project space. --Bduke (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Didé Fofana[edit]

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

Scrapes a WP:NFOOTBALL pass after making a single 'fully professional league' appearance in 2017, but fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chicago Maroons football. Daniel (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Chicago Maroons football team[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. The University of Chicago fielded a major football program from the 1890s until the 1930s. The school then disbanded its football program for 23 years. While football did return in the 1960s, it has not in the past 60 years been played at a major college level. (The Maroons play in Division III -- the lowest level recognized by the NCAA.) This article is an outlier -- the only stand-alone article for a UC football team covering the post-major era. The article lacks independent sourcing, and my WP:BEFORE searches found no significant coverage for the 2014 team in any independent sources (not even local Chicago papers). Finally, even at the Division III level, the 2014 Chicago team was not ranked and was not among the 32 teams participating in the Division III playoffs. Cbl62 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: Prior articles on modern Chicago football seasons have been deleted. See AfD: 2016 Chicago Maroons football team and AfD: 2012 Chicago Maroons football team. Cbl62 (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chicago Maroons football per WP:NSEASONS and as an ATD. Could be a plausible search term. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect a useful term for searching. Once upon a time, this storied football program was the best in the land. Today it is still a good program in its own right, but not on the level that we typically hold out as a "season-to-season" article collection. Typically "season" articles for this level of play are not included (although there are exceptions). It does look like a nice season result-wise, maybe if we find additional sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, as WP:NSEASONS says can be done with non-notable individual seasons. Smartyllama (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Flo[edit]

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

Technically meets WP:NFOOTY after making 3 short substitute appearances (totalling 14 minutes) in an alleged 'fully professional league' around five years ago. The rest of his career has played out as a part-timer in the lower divisions - never garnered enough non-routine coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not inherit notability from his relatively famous dad. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - player has multiple appearances, and goals (both league and Cup) for FPL team, and ongoing career. That's enough for me; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous comment Abcmaxx (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Berg (footballer, born 1943) Mentoz (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Ineke[edit]

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

My WP:BEFORE has shown no significant coverage in reliable media. All the references in the article don't meet the requirements. There's also a WP:ARTIST fail. Less Unless (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having looked for sources, I have to agree with the nominator. Not notable by the professional standard and the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sola scriptura (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page with just two working links, one of them clearly primary. A hatnote in each article will suffice per WP:ONEOTHER. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 16:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –Cupper52^Discuss! 16:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless dabpage. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear case of WP:ONEOTHER. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough ambiguities connected to this term to warrant a DAB page. Some of the less notable wikilinks in the page could be added to the See Also section of the more notable Sola scriptura article. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 23:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A disambiguation page is not required here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Jesuit educational institutions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola Jesuit Secondary School, Malawi[edit]

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

Fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 16:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 16:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of Jesuit educational institutions. I was just in the middle of writing an AfD proposal myself when I noticed that someone else had beat me to it. So, for the sake of efficiency, here is the nom that I had drafted, which reflects my views: "This article was deprodded with the edit summary "deprod, secondary school". But of course current consensus holds that there is no inherent notability for secondary schools; they must instead pass the GNG. This school does not. The article provides no sources outside its own website, and despite a thorough BEFORE search of local Malawian press, in English and Chichewa, I have been unable to locate anything outside of routine coverage. The subject is thus non-notable, and so the article should be either deleted or redirected to List of Jesuit educational institutions." Here's a courtesy ping for the deprodder, Necrothesp. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Jesuit educational institutions, being a secondary school does not guarantee notability, nor does this appear notable. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Jesuit educational institutions. Source in the article + BEFORE doesn't support GNG or ORGCRIT, nothing in the article relates to NBUILD. Nothing comes close to having SIGCOV from IS RS that addresses the subject directly and indepth. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. Redirects are cheap and there is a good target. // Timothy :: talk 22:07, 8 February 2021 (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. People are free to create a Wiktionary entry, but this unsourced content may not be fit for copying to Wiktionary.

The article, by Vasudevart, read, in full: "Thrinay is a word from sanskrit language. It has multiple meanings. Trina means throne in Sanskrit. The word Thrinay means one who is seated on throne. It is mainly used to describe Gods and Goddesses in Hindu religion. It is used more in Devi Mahatmya to address Saraswati, one of the three supreme goddesses of Hindu religion. In some Puranas (like Skanda Purana) Saraswati is considered the daughter of Shiva (Shivaanujaa) and in some Tantras she is associated with Ganesha as his sister. Some also consider Thrinay as one of the names of Lord Shiva." Sandstein 18:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thrinay[edit]

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

This should have a Wiktionary entry, if it doesn't have one already. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create a Wiktionary entry per nom. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and redirect with ((Wiktionary redirect)), assuming a Wiktionary page is created. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom. (I was wondering if I'd ever fill in the blank space in my AfD Stats...) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki As per nom. Setreis (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and soft redirect to Wiktionary, per all above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to deleting the article if it's unfit for Wiktionary. I really can't find any use of this word online, except as a name. That's not to say it's fake, but there may not be enough to even verify its existence. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiktionary generally includes Sanskrit words written in Devanagari or Brahmic scripts, not the Latin alphabet. It's not entirely clear from this article what words or languages are meant. (Does "a word from Sanskrit" mean "an English word"? or some other language(s)?) Cnilep (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiktionary has standards too, it's not a dumping ground for Wikipedia's unsourced schlock. – Uanfala (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rino Falk Larsen[edit]

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

Passes WP:NFOOTY on account of 3 short substitute appearances in an alleged 'fully professional league' five years ago. The rest of his career has taken place in the lower divisions, fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. Player has 3, but only totalling 32 minutes of play - not enough. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 8 February 2021 (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 Zygomycosis. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zygomycophyta[edit]

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

Zygomycophyta is not the name of a fungal group in Index Fungorum or MycoBank. The term produces no hits in JSTOR, Google Scholar, nor Pubmed. There are a few hits in Google Books, mostly from USMLE study Guides. I suspect whoever wrote these guides misspelled the name Zygomycota, as the taxa discussed in this article are all members of that fungal phylum. I have no opinion whether some of the material in the article could be selectively merged to other articles, but there should not be an article with this title. Esculenta (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to zygomycosis, which is the broad name for the infection that these taxa (among others) cause. There certainly is no valid taxonomic grouping "zygomycophyta" (for one thing, it's paraphyletic), and the term appears to be only in use in the study guides mentioned above. But the material covered under "Diagnosis" and "Treatment" would be a good addition to the target page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Elmidae. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Elmidae.Less Unless (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christoffer Eliassen[edit]

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

Passes WP:NFOOTY by virtue of 2 brief substitute appearances in an alleged 'fully professional league' 18 years ago. The rest of his career was in the amateur/semi-pro ranks. Fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no passing of GNG. That is the actual minimum notability requirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanshika Verma Khare[edit]

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

non-notable person, the sources are all utterly unreliable despite coming from big names - they're just rehashed press releases. The Statesman, for example has an inspiration hub which publishes PR crap that people pay for, same with Hans India and the rest. And lest we not forget, the stellar reporting of "DD News" who proudly proclaim "Women literally go to places in life!" as if it's some sort of surprise. CUPIDICAE💕 15:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, excluding pr-fluff. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable having three published books and sufficient WP:RS. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capankajsmilyo can you please provide a source that isn't a rehashed press release or brand promotion? Because right now there are 0. CUPIDICAE💕 13:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Capankajsmilyo: As the article creator you are usually expected to ivote keep. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok if page creator wants to vote, assuming they have accounted for the concerns being raised. Vikram Vincent 08:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject is not notable and sources are not exactly reliable per WP:RS. Vikram Vincent 08:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StoryFire[edit]

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

The article relies primarily on non-independent, self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves in the form of tweets and YouTube videos by one of the founders.

Remaining sources, with the exception of a couple Tubefilter articles, do not extend beyond trivial mentions of the topic. A notability tag has been in place for several months, and notability has not been established. Besides, the platform features at best three notable creators, one of which does not even have their own Wikipedia article. The shutdown announcement currently makes up about half of the article, yet it has not been covered by any independent source, as it does not extend beyond mere YouTube and social-media "drama". throast (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. throast (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. throast (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. throast (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking at the sourcing, the migration of users such as LeafyIsHere implies the subject could potentially become notable soon. However, it currently isn't, so deleting without bias against a potential recreation is the best option here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The site is definitely a thing and is described accurately. 2603:8000:AA41:C200:6C0B:A37:39DF:98DB (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not delete" is not the proper way of voting, so I am changing it to "Keep." You need to provide valid reasons why it meets WP:GNG. The article lacks enough news coverage. If there are more out there, feel free to provide them or add to the article.Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per my above comment, it doesn't meet WP:GNG. I did a google search too and cant find too much. The company name is generic and brings up unrelated results. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the site aside from a Times article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this badly fails WP:NCORP; there is almost no independent coverage on this company let alone addressing it directly and in depth Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oh dear, I did not realize sources were this bad. I looked for better sources, but did not find anything close to WP:NCORP, and did not find anything to suggest other sources exist. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Berg (footballer, born 1943)[edit]

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

Unexplained removal of PROD: article subject fails WP:NFOOTY due to the Norwegian men's football league not being 'fully professional', also fails WP:GNG due to lack of sustained, non-routine coverage in reliable sources. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet NFOOTBALL and no evidence he meets GNG either. If coverage is out there please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know jack about football, but does playing multiple matches in the European Cup Winners' Cup, including the quarter-finals, equate to some sort of notability? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under NFOOTBALL, no - that requirement is that you have to play in a competitive match between two teams from fully professional leagues. In theory, playing at that high level, even if for a semi-pro team, would surely generate enough coverage to meet GNG - the issue is that no such sources have been presented. Giant Snowman 11:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That the article is poorly written and lack sources is not a valid reason to delete articles about notable subjects. Mentoz (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree on the assessment here, I feel GNG can be established with historical archive searches. There is enough offline content per National Library Norway. Govvy (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be one of those annoying nominators who tries to rebut every !vote. But just a quick note here if I may: I can see the guy's name has lots of hits in this archive. But it mostly appears to be trivial mentions in squad listings, stats compendiums etc. You've made several boilerplate keep votes across all of these discussions (as it your right). But you have only ever made vague waves towards WP:MUSTBESOURCES. For an, ahem, "hugely prominent" footballer I would expect to see at least WP:3SOURCES addressing him directly and in detail. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first post that I posted, from all the nominations you sent to AfD, I looked at all of them that you nominated and there are a number of AfD's that you nominated that probably deserve to be deleted. However I feel that a fair number need to be kept. It feels like you have rushed through a number of articles into AfD. I can't read all the citations, but there are a number of newspaper articles on the players, which I don't understand, can't read and there is sources out there. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Govvy (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Govvy - evidently a hugely prominent player in Norwegian football Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, I made the article, and could probably have done a better job doing so, but as I mentioned above, that the article is poorly written and lack sources is not a valid argument for deletion. This guy played in several seasons during the amateur era of a now fully-professional league, and thus meet WP:NFOOTBALL, atleast this was the consensus when I was editing actively a few years ago. Norwegian sources are generally hard to find for that time-period, because they are mostly offline as Govvy stated above, and I would suggest Aftenposten's archive would be the best place to find sources for this particular player. Mentoz (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the nominators edits from 7th and 8th of February, they made a whole bunch of nomination for deleting under the misconception that the Norwegian top tier is not a fully-professional league. Some of these Norwegian footballers are even well-known that "everyone" that follows Norwegian football know who are, like Arild Berg. I'm not actively editing Wikipedia anymore, but deleting these articles will be a loss for Wikipedia. It's easy to slap on a banner with the text "does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG", it's much harder to find and add sources to convince other editors that several douzens of articles meet GNG within a week. If the Norwegian top league isn't considered a fully-professional league anymore, these articles should be gathered in one AfD as it'll be the same discussion in most of them. Mentoz (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do that because they are not covered by WP:NFOOTBALL and individually need to stand or fall by WP:GNG. Some will pass (like Arild Berg). Others won't. Incidentally, since you present yourself as an expert on the subject here, do you know if/when the league did turn 'fully professional'? My feeling is that the current provisional 2001 cut-off date needs to be nudged forward somewhat. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Govvy. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I again find this a strange argument. If Norway was a professional league in 1968 he would be accepted under NFootball. However he played in European football's second most important tournament at the time (behind the European Cup) in a part time team so isn't notable? Madness! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagore Almeida[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

same as my last AFD. complete spam article, refbombed out the wazoo, but sourced almost entirely to blackhat SEO and paid for nonsense (and interviews, of course.) CUPIDICAE💕 13:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see I had declined a speedy in the past. I wasn't sure then that it would pass AfD and can't find any reliable source coverage now that indicates notability. He exists, no one is doubting that. StarM 14:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Buer[edit]

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

Contested PROD with the wording: "this player played in two national cup finals (the equivalent of the FA Cup!) and made several top tier appearances; surely this should not be deleted without at least a discussion". Cup final appearances is not the metric we use for notability and is therefore irrelevant - article fails on WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet NFOOTBALL and no evidence he meets GNG either. If coverage is out there please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played a lot of matches for Norway's top teams, the two cup finals are not a fluke but more of crowning of his career, given that both teams are nowhere near as sucessful nowadays. Abcmaxx (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Berg (footballer, born 1943) Mentoz (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has coverage here, here, here and here. Good enough for me. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - keep per Spiderone. I doubt that the nominator conducted WP:BEFORE or if they did, they clearly didn't look for sources from the time. The fact that the nominator PRODded this first concerns me as I thought it was only for uncontroversial deletions (and that is before we touch upon the subject of PRODding FA Cup winners, which all seems rather POINTy). Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serbenda[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know whether this social/political type is notable, and so cannot comment directly on the that aspect of this discussion. But I would highlight the actual text of NOTADICTIONARY: "a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written... [This can lead to a misunderstanding] that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." This looks like it may be a stub, rather than a dictionary entry as such. Cnilep (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: No, the word is not socio-politically notable. I'm sure it may be referenced in passing in several reliable sources, but WP:ENN. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's neither notable, well-structured as references and the content go or per WP:NAD. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:09, 9 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Duncan[edit]

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

This was deleted under the title of Danny Duncan (YouTube personality), by the time I wrote that article I thought it would pass WP:GNG but now someone has changed a redirect page to a whole new article, the references are just YouTube videos of himself. Mjbmr (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman Mjbmr (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no significant coverage in RS. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER.Less Unless (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Definitely a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have improved the article somewhat and found plenty of other sources. I am just surprised that above editor "Barely found anything about him," Google news returns more info about him, including VICE and Variety. I am reserving my vote for now, until I do a little more research. Expertwikiguy (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just being mentioned is not enough. There have to be at least 3 independent reliable sources with articles fully dedicated to the subject and talking about him in detail. The fact that he blew up his car or gifted one to a random girl is not the kind of coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned previously, I haven't been able to find any WP:RS. Danny Duncan doesn't seem to meet. Redoryxx (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the sources being some big names, the actual content itself is just crufty garbage and quoting him about his love of being a virgin, so blp1e at best. CUPIDICAE💕 21:31, 11 February 2021 (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. People disagree mainly about whether this is a concept discussed as such in the social sciences, or merely a neologism and/or a label by ideological opponents of "social justice". And there's no way I can determine, within my role of AfD closer, who's right or wrong here. Sandstein 10:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical social justice[edit]

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

Neologism apparently invented by opponents of the social justice movement - sources are polemic opinion pieces or books, literally all of which are written by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose. It does not appear to be self-applied by anyone. Previous version included deceptive use of sources which did not contain the phrase "critical social justice." The one remaining source not written by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose... is a review of the book by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(For transparency, this is the version before I attempted to gut and rewrite it before realizing it wasn't salvageable because literally all the sources came back to Lindsay and Pluckrose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

*delete per WP:TNT GScholar lights up like a Christmas tree for this term, so I'm not convinced anything the current article says is true. I'm not sure that the numerous references to it in scholarly literature are intended to mean a specific and distinct topic, but either way, this is either NN, or it's a real subject and not a right-wing neologism. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC) see below Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The article discussed it as a real subject, not a neologism, but only cited very low-grade sources for that. Nom was the one who rewrote it to refer to critical social justice as a neologism. —Kilopylae (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. This should be a move request — not a gutted page and an AfD. The broad social and intellectual movement (call it critical social justice, woke ideology or whatever else) is clearly deserving of an overview article that does not currently exist. This AfD is predicated on the idea that CSJ as a neologism for that topic is not notable, which is true. However, the topic for which CSJ is a neologism is notable. Hence the article should be renamed to a more appropriate term and should be returned to its original framing as an article about the intellectual and social movement rather than the terminology. —Kilopylae (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One cannot write a page about a purported "intellectual and social movement" when literally all the sources are from two people who have established themselves in opposition to this claimed "intellectual and social movement." The page wouldn't have been "gutted" if it included sources other than blogposts by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, a book by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, a book review of said book, an opinion column by Helen Pluckrose, and a YouTube video by... Helen Pluckrose. (Nice try with the Britannica source which nowhere actually contained the phrase "critical social justice," but that doesn't count.) You may wish to review WP:V and WP:RS - basically you're demanding that we take these two people's polemic opposition to what they claim to be "critical social justice" as fact, and that we clearly cannot do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scholarly and borderline-scholarly papers coin neologisms all the time. This one hasn't reached the point of being sufficiently widespread and established to qualify as noteworthy. Sources not by Lindsay and Pluckrose are false positives. Some use "critical" as a synonym for "vital"; e.g., Some counselor and counseling psychology training programs also might consider including educational, legal, and public policy institutions as experiential or applied learning sites for the development of critical social justice competencies among their students (Constantine et al. (2007), emphasis added). Others use the phrase to describe their own work, but overall there isn't an established meaning consistent across authors. It's not our job to bring unity where the actual literature has none. (Compare the recent deletion of Indigenous Ways of Knowing on WP:SYNTH grounds.) WP:TNT applies. XOR'easter (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also reminds me of these recent discussions about one academic's recent, and not widely discussed, ideas. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The examples given above aren't in any way accurate comparisons - there is sufficient evidence that the term is widespread, used in major publications, and consistent across authors - see references added today. Vastsmack (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the added references. Many were, in my view, unsuitable per WP:RS; at least one was Russian state propaganda. I'm still going with "delete" on this one. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That does not automatically render it unsuitable for all contexts — Russian state propaganda is a reliable source for "what the Russian state is putting out as propaganda", for instance. A major news publication using a phrase does help to establish that that phrase is used in a range of publications and the author of an RT piece using a phrase does help to establish that a range of authors have used the phrase; the reliability of statements of fact in that source has no bearing on its use as a source for the style of language it is using. WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:RSOPINION are both worth considering here, particularly the principles that information provided "by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable" (from WP:RSCONTEXT), which indicates that the reliability of a source varies in relation to different kinds of information that the source may be cited to support, and "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact" (from WP:RSOPINION), which establishes the general principle that a source that is unreliable for matters of fact — such as Russian state propaganda — might be reliable for other material, such as the author's opinion and presumably also such as whether the source used a particular phrase or not. —Kilopylae (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Today has been formally deprecated. Consequently, it can only be used in extraordinarily rare circumstances (WP:ABOUTSELF), none of which would apply here. XOR'easter (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My search is turning up the same thing as XOR'easter's: this neologism is not used in this way in any in-depth independent discussions of the idea that I can find. We do not have the coverage needed for a standalone page about a recent academic neologism. And TNT has basically already been applied to this page, I think correctly, leaving nothing worth merging anywhere and no sources that I can find worth adding back in. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO --LaserLegs (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per WP:TNT. SwashWafer (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed that previous version of article was far too reliant on Lindsay and Pluckrose as primary sources. I've added a considerable amount of detail and secondary sourcing to this article today, enough I think to make a strong case for keeping the article. NorthBySouthBaranof made the AfD under the premise that CSJ is a "Neologism apparently invented by opponents of the social justice movement...It does not appear to be self-applied by anyone." This is incorrect - in fact, the term was both coined and self-applied by a major figure in the social justice movement (DiAngelo) who traces its history and stresses the centrality of the concept to her project. The term's recent appropriation by opponents of the field I believe makes it particularly noteworthy. Furthermore - the term is being used with some frequency in publications big and small. Don't blame above contributors for not spotting the links as some are buried in search results, but they are there, and I've added the references. Vastsmack (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 2000+ hits on GScholar. The concept is notable, and I don't see what in the current article merts WP:TNTing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counting the raw hits on Google Scholar is wildly misleading for this topic. If you search "critical social justice" you see a colossal number of hits for people who are not talking about this article subject at all, but are rather saying things like "we have a need for critical social justice reforms". Why do you believe you found thousands of hits for the topic of the article and not just the same string being used in an unrelated way? This is like arguing to keep an article on an obscure person named "Bob Smith" because "Bob Smith" has a lot of google hits. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:GOOGLEHITS applies to Scholar as well, particularly for phrases with alternate meanings. XOR'easter (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Political neologisms have a place on Wikipedia. If they did not, then you'd have to delete many pages worth of terms used exclusively in Marxism theory. --Ryubyss (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Other stuff exists" is generally not a good starting point for deciding whether to keep or delete. It's possible that we should delete some pages of Marxist theory; it's also possible that (whatever they are) they're better supported by reliable sources than this page is. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article is not presently in the best condition but reflects a political concept that is increasingly being discussed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per changes made by Vastsmack. FreeEncyclopediaMusic (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm almost to the point of withdrawing my previous opinion, but I'm still seeing an article which doesn't actually describe the subject adequately to take it beyond a social science buzzphrase. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of clarity about the social-science-buzzphrase meaning of the phrase also makes it hard to tell whether it's actually the same thing as what Lindsay, Pluckrose, etc. are complaining about, or whether they lifted the term and are applying it more broadly. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- DiAngelo and her critics agree on a precise definition of Critical social justice, i.e. critical theory applied to social justice. Lindsay et al explain that they use her term because she defines it and they agree with that definition. What sits under that umbrella is broad, but the term itself is specific, and I don't believe there's another term for what it describes. Regarding Mangoe's point that the article "doesn't describe the subject adequately" - additional referenced details have been cut - some quite rightly by XOR'easter, but some I'm still confused about. e.g. I'm still unsure sure why the Federalist ref was cut - as an opinion column by the political editor of a prominent conservative news website, I thought it significant? (I'm a new contributor so apologise if if this is not the right forum for the question) Vastsmack (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can't use an opinion column as a reference for factual details about anything. At best, it's usable for the cited opinion of the author, and that only if deemed due weight. It's unclear whether The Federalist (a clearly-partisan source of unknown provenance and funding which published knowing falsehoods and conspiracy theories about the 2020 United States presidential election) is due weight on this subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - John Daniel Davidson, that same "political editor of a prominent conservative news website" you wish to cite, wrote an article promoting the clearly-false and seditious conspiracy theory that Democratic Party machines in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are trying to steal the election. If that's the quality of the sourcing you're standing on, I rest my case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I cited an opinion column as a source for an opinion - it was marked as a such as per WP:RSOPINION. XOR'easter cited WP:DUE but given that the term has gained more currency among critics it's reasonable to expect the weighting of the literature reflected in the article. Regarding The Federalist - yes, it's clearly partisan - but that alone doesn't distinguish it from any major news network in America. I'm not aware of The Federalist being a deprecated source, despite its coverage of the 2020 Election conspiracy theories (I don't read it but I'll take your word for it - they are Trump sycophants) Your dislike of their politics or their misleading coverage of a certain issue does not mean their political editor's opinions need additional corroboration to establish their significance.
      - Even if the subject is notable, random opinions about it aren't necessarily worth talking about. In fact, the more noteworthy a subject, the more people pay attention to it, and the more nonsense is said about it — 90% of everything is crud, and for a more popular topic you're just taking 90% of a larger commentary pie. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that there aren't any reliable sources (or even unreliable ones?) defining what is, and what isn't, "critical theory applied to social justice."
  - In what way are DiAngelo and Lindsay, two best-selling authors, not reliable sources? Vastsmack (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sales don't indicate reliability. Goop is a successful brand, but that doesn't make its products actual medicine. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Lindsay's entire essay about this subject last year is basically describing his invention/repurposing of the term "critical social justice" as a naked attempt to rebrand his opposition to "the social justice movement" because using that phrase feeds into exactly the nearly perfect branding that the movement wants. He wrote Still, it’s nearly always best to name your enemy something that they would or do call themselves. So basically he's trying to invent "critical social justice" as a neologistic phrase to brand his clearly-identified ideological enemy, which is the existing social justice movement. We're not obligated to help him. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Naked attempt"? Well, at least you're being honest that your WP:TNT is based on your ideological opposition to Lindsay. I've given an example on the talk page that you're clearly not holding your own editing to the standards that you've held mine. Your bar for including random quotes critical of Lindsay is lower than your bar for including Lindsay's own words. Guidelines make clear that a self-published source is sometimes the best possible source when it concerns the views of an expert in the relevant field. Lindsay and Pluckrose literally wrote a best-selling book in this field. Their views on Critical social justice are cited in the media. And I don't think your characterisation of Lindsay's views is accurate - in his telling, he is not rebranding "the social justice movement", but trying to differentiate between social justice, and what he and others have previously called the 'Social Justice Movement', that is, the specific tendency to use ideas derived from Critical Theory as a lens through which to view problems of social justice. If Critical Theory was an insoluble part of "the social justice movement" I would expect it to be cited at least once in the article. Vastsmack (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You keep declaring James Lindsay as an "expert" on social justice as if that's some known and acknowledged fact. It's not. He's clearly a critic who views social justice as his ideological enemy (his words) - that doesn't make him an "expert" on social justice any more than Mike Lindell is an "expert" on elections. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, it really looks like "critical social justice" as used by DiAngelo means a somewhat specific (but still buzzwordy) thing, while "critical social justice" for Lindsay is the new "grievance studies" or "wokeism", i.e., anything in a great big blob of ideas that Lindsay doesn't like. XOR'easter (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep I'm going to give the article another day or so before I look at it again, but it seems to me baldly obvious that however much Lindsay may have a right to criticize CSJ in practice, he has no standing to define it in theory. That said, and leaving aside my personal skepticism about critical theory in general, it seems clear that we're at the point of trying to hammer out a decent article on a notable subject at this point, rather than being stuck with starting from scratch. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who originally titled the page critical social justice, I want to emphasise that Mangoe is completely correct that what we need is a decent article on a notable subject. I'm really not wedded to the term CSJ — I just used it because it was what I'd heard. We need an article about the topic and discussion about what that article should be titled (including NorthbySouth's concern that CSJ is a non-notable neologism) is not a matter for this AfD. —Kilopylae (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actually enough to support a stand-alone article, though, or would the topic be better off treated as an offshoot of something else within another article? XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge It doesn't look like this is really a good standalone article - critical social justice gives 470 million hits whereas critical social justice lindsay gives 5 million. It is probably better off being a part of Lindsay's article given that this term is only a small fraction of what critical social justice is on the internet. See also critical social justice pedealogy which has 15 million hits and critical social justice feminism which has 36 million hits. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per and Kilopylae and Vastsmack. I agree with the users arguing that this is a notable topic, although it's known by many different names. Other names for this set of beliefs are "Wokeism" and "Successor ideology". While the articles Wokeism and Successor ideology also exist, those are articles about the terms "Woke" and "Successor ideology", while Wikipedia does not have an article (aside from this one) about the actual belief system that these terms are describing. So the article should be kept, but I wouldn't be opposed to moving it to a different name. 2600:1004:B119:831C:A0BF:D564:1BD6:5387 (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is at the very least debatable whether "Wokeism" and "Successor ideology" are actual belief systems or merely labels applied to disparage ideas the labeler doesn't like. Consequently, they are best discussed as terms, since the terms themselves exist. XOR'easter (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This belief system recently was denounced by the president of France: [31] Instead of "Wokeism" or "Successor ideology", his education minister referred to it as "an intellectual matrix from American universities". These are a lot of different terms for the same set of beliefs. If a belief system is notable enough for the president of a country to denounce it, it should be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. 2600:1004:B11E:1D33:4DF0:ACE1:82B2:9BF4 (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you have the problem of WP:SYNTH. That NYT article nowhere uses the phrase "critical social justice." It might be your personal opinion that it's talking about "the same set of beliefs," but absent a reliable source making the connection, Wikipedia cannot do so. There are many topics which Wikipedia may or may not be able to, in some minds, adequately cover because reliable sources have not yet covered them adequately. That James Lindsay wants to popularize the term "critical social justice" for this purported set of viewpoints is clear. That the term is in anything resembling widespread use is not debatable - it is not. If it was, we'd have far more and better sources than a batch of op-ed columns written exclusively by people who share his opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear: are you agreeing that there exists a coherent set of beliefs, with its own epistemology and set of policy prescriptions, that these various terms are referring to? And the question is whether Wikipedia can apply the term "critical social justice" (or any other term) to this set of beliefs, in cases where sources aren't using that specific term? 2600:1004:B11E:1D33:4DF0:ACE1:82B2:9BF4 (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Lindsay has laid out a rather broad, vague set of things he views as his "ideological enemy" which he thinks should be collectively called "critical social justice." That there is any sort of coherency to that set of things is, at this point, a matter of opinion, and based on the sources that anyone has been able to find, his opinion doesn't appear to be very widely shared. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; whether there is a coherent set of beliefs, with its own epistemology and set of policy prescriptions is not at all clear from the sources available, which tend to the polemic rather than the soberly analytical. XOR'easter (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I linked to the article quoting the president of France. This is a situation where there are a few Wikipedia editors saying there isn't necessarily any coherent underlying ideology that these terms are describing, while the president of a country and several members of his cabinet are saying that there is. How many national leaders have to say this a real ideology before it becomes verifiable? Is it necessary for the presidents of multiple countries to say it, rather than just one? 2600:1004:B163:4C2D:D0FC:62DF:786A:E4CC (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what reliable source says that what the French president was talking about is "critical social justice"? If you can't find one, it's prohibited original synthesis to make such a connection. We already have articles on "Woke" and social justice which discuss criticisms by people who perceive problems with those perceived philosophies (that there is a coherent and identifiable "woke" is debatable). Just because James Lindsay wants to rebrand them "critical social justice" doesn't mean Wikipedia is going to automatically follow his every whim. We follow the sources, and the sources aren't taking up his phrasing.

As a matter of fact, the NYT article specifically uses the phrase "woke leftism." So if you wanted to include that article there, it shouldn't be a problem. That the NYT has not taken up Lindsay's rebranding project is not a problem Wikipedia can fix for you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing the subject. There are two separate questions here, but when I try to address one, you switch to the other. These are the two questions:

1: Is "Critical social justice" a widely used term, and are there enough sources available that describe what it means?

2: Is there a real underlying ideology to which this term, "Woke leftism", and "Successor ideology" refer?

My last comment was addressing (2), not (1), but your response here was to bring up point (1) again.

I'm fine with the article being named something other than "critical social justice", if we can come up with another term that's more widely used. I'm making a point about the concept, not the name. The relevance of the comments from the French president is that they show it's verifiable there is a real ideology that these terms are referring to. And there is no other Wikipedia article about this particular ideology, rather than about various individual names for it. 2600:1004:B14D:A7C2:6CFB:635E:492D:B534 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a politician reliable about, well, anything? Also, it seems to me that NorthBySouthBaranof's comment was about your point (2): it's not our job to declare that what one person calls "woke leftism" is the same as what somebody else calls "critical social justice". XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the article at "woke"? That seems to be the term used by, well, the source you yourself cited. And it contains extensive discussion and criticism of perceived issues with the perception of "woke." Whether or not it is a "real ideology" is certainly a question of debate, but some people certainly argue that it is, and there are sufficient reliable sources on the issue for Wikipedia to present that debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ryubyss, though the name may be arguable. tickle me 12:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanna Bina[edit]

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

Previously deleted via PROD so no longer eligible. No indication that Bina actually passes WP:NACTOR, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NJOURNALIST. She does not have multiple significant acting roles nor have any of these books that she has released garnered significant attention. I suppose the other claim to significance is being an 'influencer', but I see this word used way too often on subjects that don't even pass the bare minimum of WP:GNG. I have used a few search engines, including DDG, which filters out a lot of the junk sources, but still not found anything significant. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article creator does have COI:username “Roxybina” –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I’ve voted already, Bina has less than 800 subs on YT. –Cupper52^Discuss! 16:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article makes her out to be some sort of internet superstar but I, too, have found no proof. I also expected her to have more than 1300 followers on Twitter. Barely more than me and I'm a complete nobody! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on top of no proof of notability, 800 subs is pitiful for a supposed "influencer". Best, GPL93 (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about her. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Previous PROD was correct and nothing seems better now. No meaningful sources, no WP:GNG, likely autobiography. No meaningful sources in Google either.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable in every sense of the word, not to mention pure vanity piece by the subject themselves. There really needs to be a better mechanism for preventing this sort of nonsense going live in the first place. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of anything that would show WP notability in any category and has no significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medivia Online[edit]

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

PROD contested with Objecting the deletion proposal. Added citations and linked some articles that I could found. Please let me know if this page needs improvement. I can't see any evidence of this passing WP:NVG nor any other relevant SNG. It does not have significant commentary from published sources that are independent of the subject. Forum posts and wikis are not considered to be reliable or published. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The user added three sources: Indie DB, MMORPG.org.pl, and OTLand. Indie DB is user-authored, OTLand is a forum. MMORPG.org.pl is at least authored, but from a quick glance has no reliability features, such as named authors. WP:VG/SE returns zero hits, even for "Medivia" alone, making a lack of notability apparent. IceWelder [✉] 11:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing enough here (or in my BEFORE search) to make it pass Wikipedia:Notability (video games). It seems to be a fork of Tibia (video game), maybe it could be mentioned there in a section about spin-offs or such, although right now we hardly have references to even justifying mentioning it anywhere. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the game. Article looks WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4/9 citations are from Medivia Online Wiki which is a fan wiki. As IceWelder said, the other citations are not WP:RS. Not a notable video game. Wario-Man ^talk 14:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I take a pretty liberal view towards video game articles and this fails even my standards. My searches returned no independent media coverage for this game, which is a pretty bad sign considering how many video game outlets there are out there. So, seems like it fails GNG to me. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGirl[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. This is the best source I could find, and that's not really sufficient to have an article here. Fram (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy?) per nom. The article also reeks of COI. IceWelder [✉] 10:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my searches are only coming back with other female gamers and YouTubers. There is a real lack of significant coverage about Karina Kurzawa Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Some of the article's claims do seem credibly indicative of notability, but if nothing can be found for them it doesn't particularly pan out. Mildly optimistic for WP:HEY work and willing to change my !vote if anyone can find better sources. It's a difficult name to search, which complicates matters. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Delete Extremely short page with only three one-sentence sections and two sources. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about her aside from a listicle. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A7 and G11. This is one that certainly needs the boot. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per under A7 and G11. Setreis (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 777burger ^{user talk} ^contribs 21:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Takaki Ose[edit]

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

Looks like failing WP:NFOOTBALL as no reliable sources suggest that he has ever played in a game between two teams listed at WP:FPL nor has he received any senior international caps for Japan. I checked Soccerway, GSA and Football Critic before starting this discussion. During my WP:BEFORE search, I could find only name checks in match reports, squad announcements and transfer news and there is general consensus that this type of coverage does not add up to passing WP:GNG as it does not address Ose in depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Charles Church Developments. Daniel (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Church (businessman)[edit]

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

Seems only passingly notable for the crash - doesn't pass GNG Pipsally (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charles Church Developments. Subject is roughly BLP1E for the crash and is already mentioned in the context of the company. Zindor (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suon Noeut[edit]

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

According to Soccerway, GSA, Footballcritic and Playmakerstats, this does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Best sources found were this and this, neither of which would be enough for WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One Young World[edit]

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

essentially promotionalism . Most of the refs are straight PR, or promotional interviews, . The remainder are mere notices of someone giving a talk, or the like The intent is apparently PR--at this point I find it difficult to believe that anyone who will actually use a reference from prnewswire intends anything else. There is a place for this material--its their website. DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G11 as unambiguous promotion, because that's what it clearly is. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G11. Setreis (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to International Socialist Tendency#Affiliate organisations. Daniel (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Democracy Group[edit]

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

Failure to establish notability per WP:ORG. No "claim to fame" and lack of coverage by reliable third-party sources. CentreLeftRight ✉ 09:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Socialist Tendency#Affiliate organisations, pinprick Trotskyist organisation even by the standards of Trotskyist organisations, I could find no significant coverage of them, and it says a lot that the British Socialist Workers Party's article on the Thai protests does not even mention them. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Narayan[edit]

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

Promo of non notable singer who lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. None of the source quoted in the article is reliable. But when I did searched web, his name appeared multiple times. Probably he may pass WP:GNG if sources are corrected. May be more sources are available in Bhojpuri language. nirmal (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Worth a G11 imo. Java Hurricane 16:45, 12 February 2021 (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. Okay, with the lack of sources it currently fails both WP:V and WP:GNG. Ping me for undelete if enough RS are located that would verify its existence. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glamoč Airport[edit]

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

The article has been recently nominated for deletion on Polish Wikipedia as a possible hoax. Sources present here and on other interwikis are very poor and seem to be to some websites of dubious reliability which might have copied information from Wikipedia. Linked Google Map coordinates show what looks like normal farmland. Code LQGL does not seem to exist in this ICAO database (it's the one linked from ICAO airport code, if there is a more reliable one I couldn't find it - please add it to said page). The consulted database lists six others airports in Bosnia Hercegovina but nothing in Glamoc. Then there is an issue whether this entity would pass WP:GNG if it was real - but first, we have to seriously consider that this is a hoax (unintentional perhaps, a repetition of some error due to the creator's assumption that this website - the only cited source - is reliable - but it is just someone's personal homepage...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a likely hoax, though I would be interested in seeing how the matter on other wikis resolves in case any better information turns up. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Vaticidalprophet, Indeed, but I don't speak the other languages to cross-report problems... Polish deletion discussion which made me aware of the problem is here: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:02:06:Port lotniczy Glamoč _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know that this was an intentional hoax on Wikipedia but I don't think it's a real airport, from the evidence presented. - tucoxn\^talk 17:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google for the ICAO code gave me https://www.icao.int/wacaf/documents/apirg/sg/2012/afi_opmet_mtf4/docs/wp10_atta.pdf which seems to include only 4 airports in .ba total, which seems a bit suspect, though. I looked up e.g. Lučko Airport there and couldn't find it, either, yet that's definitely a real place. This Glamoč location could be an airfield that isn't an actual airport with proper facilities, but has historically been used for plane transport. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Glamo%C4%8D+airfield indicates that this should indeed be the case. Maybe simply rename it to Glamoč airfield? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning ~~delete~~. The coordinates in the article show a random stretch of rural highway with no airport or even an airstrip in the vicinity.[32]. Oakshade (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Based on below comments, I just don't know. It seems plausible there was an airport at this location, but not certain. changed to neutral. Oakshade (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Google Earth time lapse doesn't show (or have enough detail to show) the discolored area that could be an old airstrip. It's hard to be convinced if this is a real airstrip or not. - tucoxn\^talk 12:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book sources I linked typically talk of military usage, and/or during wartime, and one snippet there explicitly mentions an 'improvised' airfield, so we're unlikely to see a clear pattern of e.g. paved runways on the sattelite images (even if there was a war there since 1984). It's probably just the flattest part of the polje of Glamoč that is empty enough for planes to land. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joy, Do we have any idea which war it was used in (if any), and by which military(ies)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, the snippets I read mostly seemed to mention World War II, then the Yugoslav People's Army, and one was something NATO-related in the Bosnian War. I mean, click the GB link above, it wasn't actually non-English... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would be notable if it were real. Alas, it's not. Smartyllama (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, this violates WP:V. If evidence of existence can be found, I'll reconsider my !vote. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:A7 and G5. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MA Leathers (Modern Arts Leather)[edit]

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

Lacks WP:GNG. Jenyire2 06:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 06:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page fails WP:GNG, possibly created by a sockpuppet, and possibly edited by socks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryzhao123 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Ahmad Shah[edit]

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

BLP of a Kashmiri politician who is a party functionary and unsuccessful election candidate. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not suggest that he's ever held any "inherently" notable role that would get him a free pass into Wikipedia on WP:NPOL grounds, and it isn't sourced anywhere near well enough to deem him as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPOL.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Cry (Milton Bradley game)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). PS. More in-depth look at the sources shows the following: [33], [34], [35]. But they don't seem to meet WP:RS, being more like blog reviews or otherwise self-published. BGG page lists no reviews at all. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS so failing WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to The Civil War in Popular Culture: Memory and Meaning Battle Cry "was almost certainly the best-selling game on the Civil War" Geo Swan (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Geo Swan, Good find. It's a nice start, but one sentence like this is not sufficient to establish notability which requires more than trivial / passing mentions. If nothing else can be established from RS, we could add this factoid to the article about the publisher (Milton Bradley Company). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus, thanks for your reply. Can I draw your attention to my email to Scott Mingus, this article's original author? Contributor Scott Mingus, who started this article in 2006, is no longer active on the wikipedia. My email notes that his 2006 version would have been considered a fine addition to the wikipedia, in 2006. I told him I was concerned its nomination "might be a good example of a bad phenomenon".
  - Strong compliance with the obligations of WP:BEFORE can be tricky. I didn't rely solely on the google searches generated by the AFD template. This game was a collaboration between Milton Bradley and the American Heritage magazine, so I added "American Heritage" to my search terms.
  - I am working on an essay, User:Geo Swan/opinions/When complying with BEFORE is not straighforward. That essay isn't near being ready to promotion to the wikipedia namespace, because there are so many wrinkles to performing the really effective BEFORE searches older articles like this one really deserve.
  - Could you see your way clear to being more specific as to what you think the topic requires to merit a standalone article? Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Geo Swan, With the caveat that it is impossible to provide 'perfect measures', I interpret WP:GNG in general as requiring 2+ sources and WP:SIGCOV as clarifying that a single sentence is not sufficient to make the source non-trivial. SIGCOV gives the example of a dedicated book as a non-trivial coverage, but of course, a dedicated article or chapter will do as well. In practice, we often accept several paragraphs or even a single one as possibly being in-depth, but that can vary, and the content of those paragraphs is relevant too (for example if we discuss a piece of fiction, we tend to ask for a non-plot summary type of coverage). Anyway, for a board game, I'd like to see 2+ reliable sources that discuss its significance/impact / etc. in few paragraphs each. Usually, reviews in gaming magazines or portals are helpful here, but for older games we do run into the problem of such reviews not being digitized. Unfortunately, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES notes we can't just assume they exist. Hence, the best solution could be to WP:SOFTDELETE this article by redirecting it to the publisher, making it easy for someone to restore it if the found better sources in the future. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, thanks for another thoughtful reply. My reading of the references I found is that Milton Bradley collaborated with American Heritage magazine on four games: Dogfight (World War 1 aerial warfare), On the Beach (WW2 Pacific Island landings), and the fourth was naval warfare from the War of 1812. That is 1961. A fifth game was added some time later.

If there are some references for the other games I suggest this be moved to a new article on the collaboration, with American Heritage magazine and Milton Bradley Corporation both linking to that new article. Geo Swan (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, Right, but as we don't have said sources, I'd suggest discussing that collaboration at Milton Bradley Company in a dedicated section. Assuming we can find sources at all, the last time I checked said collaboration was mentioned in our articles without as much as a single source, sigh... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources seem to indicate the game is notable for its time. The game is significant enough that a copy is held in the collection of the Strong National Museum of Play.Guinness323 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments, and per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had no difficulty finding a good account of the rules and game play. It has a realistic map but a dice for movement and combat by jumping and so is interesting as a transitional form, between the parlour game and conflict simulation. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, And if we have a reliable source saying what you just did, it would go a long way to making this topic notable... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination lists some sources for a different game which we have covered elsewhere. It's the nomination which is unreliable. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above comments and by looking at the existing sources- plus the additional ones that have been found through this process. I see no good reason to remove this page. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ironclads series[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). PS. As far as I can tell, the term 'Ironclad series' is unofficial. The article contains an unsourced entry for one game in this 'series' ([36]). A check at BGG reveals there is one more game published by the company with the title 'Ironclads' [37] but again, any grouping of such titles into a series seems WP:OR (even the publisher owns description doesn't mention such a series (see HoI page; I couldn't even find the official page for the DW game), plus the topic fails WP:GNG as I couldn't find any reliable reviews for this 'series' as a whole. If individual games from the series are notable (dubious; those are very niche titles with no reviews listed on the linked BGG pages) then they can have their own separate pages created. PPS. We could consider redirecting this to the more notable and related Great War at Sea series, except I still can't find any RS that describes those two new games as a 'series'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS so failing WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mztourist. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mztourist and because the article says so little what is even the purpose? Nightenbelle (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Evans (politician)[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate for county sherif position fails WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 03:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people defeated in primary elections at the county level are never notable for that, and there is no other even remote claim of notability. In fact people who loose general elections at the country level are virtually never notable for that, and I am not convinced Cook County Sherrif's are default notable, but we may be able to find substantive coverage on most recent ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Thanks BubblySnow 💬 17:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, county sheriff is a level of office at which he still wouldn't be automatically guaranteed inclusion in Wikipedia even if he had won, and the article doesn't suggest any credible evidence that he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him into Wikipedia independently of the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Avril Lavigne#Fashion. As WP:ATD since it's mentioned there and her other perfume also redirects there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Rose[edit]

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

WP:PRODUCT, WP:PROMO, WP:FANCRUFT. No indication of notability. Sources are not at all reliable. Being endorsed by Avril Lavigne, a notable singer, does not make this notable. HĐ (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious promotion/spam. Fails WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 12 February 2021 (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 all. Daniel (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Kavajë[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Also delete Refik Rrugëja, Elvis Rroshi, Isa Sakja, Redjan Krali, List of members of parliament from Kavajë and Kavajë Municipal Council. Kavaje is a rather small city of just 20,000 residents. It is unknown outside Albania, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro, predominantly Albanian areas in southern Serbia, and the Albanian diaspora, and even more so unknown is it's municipal government. If articles existed about the municipal government in Albanian I would not nominate them for deletion. However none of the articles about the mayors and list of mayors even have their own article in Albanian. So why would they exist on English Wikipedia. Even in Albania, the politics of the town would not be particularly notable as Kavaje is much smaller than major Albanian cities like Tirana or Durres, and is not among the top largest cities. While sometimes there are notable mayors of small cities in foreign countries such as Andal Ampatuan Jr. or Azra Jafari, who were involved in notable political events, none of the mayors of Kavaje were involved in anything notable. --Otis the Texan (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this nomination was initially incorrectly formatted and transcluded by the nominator. I have fixed the incorrect formatting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all There is no sign that any of the subjects here are notable. While members of parliament are notable, I do not see a good reason to have the list. City/municipality/county (municipality has so many different meanings, it is often hard to decide what else it is like) leaders are not default notable. We need a truly substantive level of sources to show notability, and we lack that with any of the articles here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand why you would propose deleting biographical pages of municipality mayors? These are important public figures. Kj1595 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Lorik17 (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia does not deem every mayor of every town or city that exists as "automatically" notable enough for inclusion here — the notability test for mayors is not passed by writing the bare minimum necessary to demonstrate that the person existed as a mayor, but by documenting and sourcing substantive content about their political significance: specific things they did, specific effects they had on the development of the city, specific notable events they were directly involved in, and on and so forth. None of these articles is showing what's required. Bearcat (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2021 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Games Research Inc[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). To expand, BEFORE shows a bunch of mentions in passing, usually in the context of one of the games it published (not designed), which generally merits an attribution ("blah blah blah game x published by this company"). Those are trivial/in passing mentions, and I saw nothing to suggest the company was significant. It existed for ~2 decades, did what companies do, then went out of business. The best source I've found is "Diplomacy is published by Games Research Inc. , a Boston outfit that turns out challenging diversions". Nothing encyclopedic here. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES etc. PS. I will note that they were the second publisher of Diplomacy (game) (first edition was self-published), but that trivia in itself cannot make the company notable per WP:NOTINHERITED, unless we can find some in-depth coverage that would discuss the importance of the company in the context of the development of this game (which I looked for and failed to find). A mention of the company in the page for the Diplomacy game is sufficient (and it is already there, I've added a reference). I am not sure if a redirect is warranted, since the company published more than a single game, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Significant coverage
1. "Playing Games Is Work For 5 Harvard Alumni". The New York Times. 1963-09-13. ProQuest 116302481. Archived from the original on 2021-02-11. Retrieved 2021-02-11 – via ProQuest.
  The article profiles Games Research. It notes that the company's president is John Moot and that the company "markets and sells games of a somewhat intellectual cast". The article notes that the company's inaugural game was "Convention", which Homer D. Babbidge Jr., President Eisenhower's Undersecretary of Health, Education and Welfare, had created. The game was published in 1960 and its aim was to have the players secure over 50% of the fictional political convention's delegates. The next game the company released was "Diplomacy", which was created by Allan Calhamer. The most recent game that would be published soon was "What's That on My Head?" The company's players and members were: John T. Noonan Jr., who edited the National Law Forum and was an instructor at Notre Dame University; John Mansfield, a Harvard Law School professor; Hartley Rogers Jr., an MIT math professor; and Nathaniel Young Jr., a Boston lawyer.
2. "Brain-Busting". Time. Vol. 82, no. 24. 1963-12-13.
  The article notes: "The Anatomy of Betrayal. One uncompromisingly eggheaded game-maker is a four-year-old partnership of four Harvardmen and an interloper from Yale -- all with other fulltime jobs -- who call themselves Games Research, Inc. Their first game was Convention!, which can be played by two to seven players, each of whom is trying to win the nomination for President of the U.S. Uncommitted delegates, ballots, caucuses, bandwagon sentiment and demonstrations all play a part, with the smoke-filled room a policy of utter desperation. ... Second -- and most sophisticated -- product of Games Research is Diplomacy. ... [discussion of Diplomacy] ... Newest Games Research brain game was out last week with the double-take title: What's That on My Head? Each player wears a crownlike card holder on his head, into which an opponent inserts three lettered cards without letting the wearer see them (mirrors must be covered before the game begins). ... [discussion of What's That on My Head?]"
3. Martin, Jane. (1970-11-21). "Games Today Are Complex, Relevant, X-Rated" (pages 1, 2), and 3. The Gazette. Archived from the original (pages 1, 2, and 3) on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes that John R. Moot is the president of Games Research. The article notes: "New companies have formed to meet the demand for adult games. Games Research is one. Moot heads a four-year-old partnership of one Yale and four Harvard men who all have other fulltime jobs." The article lists the company's published games: Convention!, Insight, Diplomacy, and What's That on My Head? (a logic game). The article notes that the president and other employees of Game Research "are involved in test playing the games".
Additional sources that are passing mentions
1. Fox, Margalit (2013-03-06). "Allan Calhamer Dies at 81; Invented Diplomacy Game". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  The article notes: "In 1959, after Diplomacy was rejected by several game publishers, Mr. Calhamer had 500 copies produced at his own expense, selling them by mail for $6.95 apiece. It was acquired shortly afterward by Games Research and has since passed through many corporate hands, including those of Avalon Hill and Hasbro."
2. Verhulst, Roger (1972-08-04). "Meet the man who made up 'Diplomacy'". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "'Diplomacy' appeared in 1959, copyrighted by Calhamer. Games Research Inc., the present distributor, picked it up a year or two later."
3. Kupferberg, Herbert (1972-05-14). "Peace Is the Name of the Game". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Steadily mounting sales are also reported for an older peace game, 'Diplomacy,' which was first put out by Games Research Inc. of Boston about 10 years ago."
4. The Editors (November 1963). "Real People at Work and Play". Cosmopolitan. Vol. 155, no. 5. p. 4. ProQuest 2007361188. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via ProQuest. ((cite news)): |author= has generic name (help)
  The article notes: "Among the directors of Games Research Inc., which owns Diplomacy, are a Harvard law professor, an M.I.T. mathematics associate professor and a Harvard-educated engineer named John Moot."
5. Carlson, Elliot (1965-12-22). "Games for Grownups Gain as Makers Aim At 'TV-Weary' Adults: Demand Grows for Diplomacy, Waterloo, D-Day; Monopoly Still Sells 1.5 Million a Year". The Wall Street Journal. ProQuest 132959399. Archived from the original on 2021-02-08. Retrieved 2021-02-08 – via ProQuest.
  The article notes: "Adults account for some 60% of those who play Diplomacy, a politico-military game brought out in 1960 by Games Research, Inc., a Cambridge, Mass., concern set up specifically to market adult-oriented games." The article notes that John R. Moot is the president of Games Research. The article notes that "sales of such relatively new games as Diplomacy are rising".
6. "World article". World. Vol. 2. 1973. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  The article notes: "First cousin to the war games is Diplomacy, by Games Research. Because Diplomacy has earned a reputation as a classic in the adult game field, Games Research doesn't promote it at all and doesn't promote it at all and still sells 15,000 copies per year, which retail for $8.95.
7. Shuldiner, Herbert (November 1965). "Adult Games – no easy kid stuff". Popular Science. p. 174. Retrieved 2021-02-08.
  The article notes: "Diplomacy is published by Games Research Inc., a Boston outfit that turns out challenging diversions." The articles notes that the Games Research president is John Moot.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Games Research to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Cunard, Can you double-check the link to your source 1? Instead of an article about GRI I get one about Avalon Hill titled "Games for Grownups...". I also don't think that the few sentences in sources 2 and 3 are 'in-depth coverage', but I appreciate you quoting all the relevant information. I think some of the resources you found may be useful to expand articles about the game Diplomacy and its designer. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've corrected the link to The New York Times article. Cunard (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge to Diplomacy. Cunard found a ton more than I did, but it all appears to be short mentions, primarily in the context of Diplomacy. Those sources would be great in the Diplomacy article. Hobit (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I wrote a reply to Cunard, asking for more information and indicating I didn't see anything but passing references and asking what he liked. As I got ready to save it, I realized that I somehow had missed the entire "significant coverage" section. Entirely my fault. Those 3 sources appear to have enough to meet WP:N pretty easily. I should know better than to doubt Cunard about things like this... Hobit (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent evidence provided by Cunard above. Our numerous policies clearly indicate that deletion is not appropriate and include WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Diplomacy- which seems to be its main contribution- and its notable only for its connection to that game. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Based on my review of the sources, I oppose a merge to Diplomacy (game). The company has been profiled in The New York Times and Time. The New York Times profile discusses the company's gamemakers and three of the company's games: "Convention", "Diplomacy", and "What's That on My Head?" It spends several paragraphs discussing how "What's That on My Head?" is played. The Time article profiles the company through discussing their gamemakers and the company's three games: "Convention", "Diplomacy", and "What's That on My Head?". It would be undue weight to cover information about the company's other two games ("Convention" and ""What's That on My Head?") and the company's gamemakers in Diplomacy (game).
  Cunard (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above, and per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the 3 identified significant sources are enough to show that this company was (and therefore still is, as far as we are concerned) notable Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Diplomacy (game) as ATD. According to the latest RfC, at WP:N, the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP for determining whether references meet the criteria for establishing notability. It is a stricter guideline that vanilla GNG. Cunard above links to reference and says they meet GNG. This isn't the appropriate guideline. Looking through the lens of NCORP, the references fail the criteria. There are three references marked as "Significant". The first from the New York Times is *entirely* based on an interview with the president of Games Research and information provided by the company. There is no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND. I believe this links to the second reference based on the extract shown by Cunard above. It contains no in-depth information on the company and also appears to be entirely based on information and quotations provided by the president of the company as part of a promotion of their "newest" game "What's That on My Head?". This fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The third reference suffers from the same problems, it is entirely based on an interview with the president of the company and information provided by the company. Fails WP:ORGIND. I am unable to locate *any* references which meet the criteria, this topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- HighKing, Thank you for the detailed review. I'll also note that per WP:INTERVIEW, interviews in general are considered to be problematic as sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having problems seeing how you can know the NYT article comes solely from the company. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hobit, I don't think User:HighKing wrote that. They said (in my understanding) the article is based primarily on an interview with the company's staff, which takes us to the problems discussed in the essay linked above. (Yes, it's an essay, but in my AfD experience interviews are seen as low-tier sources - and if this is the best we have, well...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hobit, I'm puzzled that someone would question that the NYT article is anything other than one *entirely* based on an interview with John Moot. Every fact-drop is either preceded or followed by a supporting comment or an anecdotal comment either from or about Moot. This is "echo chamber" reporting and there is nothing I can see to suggest the article contains any original/independent opinion/analysis/investigation or fact checking attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company. Even with a generous eye towards ORGIND, once you strip out any quotes or information attributable to Moot or the company, we're left with ... very little and certainly not enough to satisfy CORPDEPTH since the remaining information simply describes the "object" of various games and nothing about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I got the strong sense the author was familiar with two of the games. And it does describe the workings of the company (though those parts were clearly taken from an interview). I have no problem at all with the article as counting toward WP:N, though I understand your objections. Hobit (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't understand. You agree that the information which relates to the company clearly came from an interview. The topic of this article is the company, not the products. You say that you get a sense the interviewer was familiar with the games but that not relevant for determining notability of the company. You don't say whether, or on what basis, this article meets ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH for the purposes of establishing notability though, which is the critical point to overcome. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I admit I do a lot less with corporations than almost anything else here. But I think the WP:N bar is the right bar for a company that is this old and went out of business so long ago. Just like for biographies of folks from the 1930s we might have lower expectations than we do for a living person, I think WP:N, rather than corp/org is the right bar. We can argue SNGs vs GNG all day, but I'm generally happy with the GNG bar, especially for something like this. Hobit (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cunard's sourcing demonstrated here. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King Prawn (band)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NMUSIC. Searches found only passing mentions and interviews. A couple of the albums were reviewed by AllMusic, but coverage is otherwise nonexistant. Current sources in the article include the band's own website, interviews, and Bandcamp pages. Searching the band members + "King Prawn" or the album names + "King Prawn" yielded nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found this and this easily enough. Back in the day, they were all over magazines such as Kerrang! They seemed to be on tour all the time, and I saw them live several times at my local live venue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I agree with Lugnuts, this band was big back in the day. I agree that they don't have much of an internet footprint, though. This and this clearly state that they were a prominent member of the UK ska punk scene. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior. This is a band from an interesting era for source-finding -- much of the 2000s is a time where people might expect there to be more internet sources for things than there actually are. Especially for a pretty niche subculture like this, I would expect a far larger magazine footprint than an online one. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps I should have explained why I removed the template. They seem to meet WP:NBAND#5 given that two of their albums were released under Moon Ska Europe. They also tour pretty regularly and have been in several music festivals. To pile on some additional sources I found this which states that they had a sold out farewell concert at the O2 Forum Kentish Town. JayJay^{What did I do?} 15:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As far as I can tell, they have enough coverage. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tradinista![edit]

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

The article is, by its own admission, about a private chat group that created a website in 2016, which was taken down after a few months. The claim to notability is that it was mentioned in a NYTimes OpEd and an editor at a different publication expressed support for the group in a blogpost. A short-lived internet group with a couple of mentions hardly passes muster under WP:ORGCRITE.

Furthermore, the article violates WP:GNG, in that it cites only (a) opinion pieces, (b) blogposts without editorial oversight (neither of which meet the verifiability guidelines under WP:SOURCES), and (c) articles authored by primary sources involved in the subject matter of the article. A single mention in a single NY Times OpEd plus a handful of blog posts hardly seems to constitute a reliable basis for notability. Additionally, from previous PROD dated 27 July 2018, by 53backes:

This page is for a movement that does not meet the notability requirements for an organization, as all discussions of the organization are confined to a one month window. Added to this is that only one person performed any substantial effort over the course of the past year in contributing to it.

The article has been tagged as "non-notable" without any new sources cited or substantial change in content for over two years. It appears to be the solo project of a single editor. Thorshammer595 (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A discussion group existing from Oct. 2016 to some date in 2017 is clearly NN, even if its archive remains available on the Internet. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of the Malaspina family[edit]

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

I do not see the notability of this family tree and there are no citations. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy. "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." and "Do not contribute original research to Wikipedia. Sources to verify genealogical information in Wikipedia should follow Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines" (since there are no citations) Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 01:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 01:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EDG 543: Hi! You can't put the page into deletion when it clearly says it is in construction! I'm adding sources in a draft page, where I will complete the article as soon as I can, and then hopefully transfer it to public view. But I need TIME! And the matter is important. The family is big and ruled in an important part of Northern Italy. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhmrodrigues: The article did not indicate that it was under construction when it was nominated and, upon checking just a second ago, it still does not. I was going to move it to the draftspace, but it appears there is already a draft there. I'm a little confused now. Are you working on two separate articles with the same name? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 03:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EDG 543: Hi! It wasn't me who made the move to the draft and I didn't notice that the "under construction" was erased by the user who made the move for me. I'll edit now in the draft space, with time, as this family tree is big. Sorry for the inconvenience... Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhmrodrigues, I am still a little confused. If the article had simply been moved to the draftspace, their wouldn't still be one in the mainspace. You are more than welcome to continue working on the draft, but the copy that is in the mainspace is not ready to be there yet. If you are working on both of them, it could be moved to a subpage of your userpage. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 13:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EDG 543: If the draft will be kept intact after deleting, and if I'm able to restore the page once the draft is complete, then I don't mind if you delete the page for now. Otherwise, then, I won't agree with its deletion. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhmrodrigues, it could be moved to User:Mhmrodrigues/Family tree of the Malaspina family if you still wish to work on it outside of the mainspace. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 14:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EDG 543: I would rather not move the text from place to place. I'll edit the page in the draft, as where it is now. There's no need to complicate things even more. You know now that the page is being developed, and, as you have seen, I've put again the sign of maintenance in the main page. I think that now it shouldn't bother the possible visitors of the page. I only ask to remove the delete warning, please. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EDG 543: By the way, if you want, when I finish the page, I'll notify you, in the case you have infomation about the family or specific members, so you can add. The same applies to the other people here. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhmrodrigues, the deletion notice can't be removed until the discussion has been completed. While the article is under-construction, the mainspace is not meant to house under-construction articles for long, that is why the draftspace exists. Even if you look past that, some users have brought up notability concerns as well as possible original research due to the lack of sources. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 17:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EDG 543: But who guarantees that, if the page is deleted and I create the page again once I finish it, it won't be deleted once more? And I have sources. I put them in the Bibliography. Notability? For God's sake, it is the Malaspina family, an italian noble family! A family is important as a whole! Why cover the Massa-Carrara and Fosdinovo branches and forget the members of the other branches? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhmrodrigues: If the page is deleted, it should not be recreated unless it is substantially different in topic and scope. —Kbabej (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhmrodrigues, please click this link. This is the article in discussion, not the draft. There is no bibliography in the draft. There are also only two people included in the entire article that are linked to their own articles, which isn't really much considering how many people are listed. You also have to remember (quoting Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy) "Wikipedia is not a genealogy. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." How does this article do that? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 18:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EDG 543: These authors made complete family trees of the family, that's why there's so many people in the two names of the Bibliography. The genealogy will support the understanding of the Malaspinas by detailing how each branch was created. The Spino Secco branch is very poorly developed in the Malaspina page. I'm trying to establish a relation between the branches and the terriories they ruled, and I can only do that if a family tree is available, given the extension. It's similar to the many branches of the House of Wettin, whose table of rulers (which I intend to create also for the Malaspinas in the Malaspina family page) can be viewed in the page List of rulers of Saxony. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is already thoroughly covered at Malaspina family. —Kbabej (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: Hi! No, it's not. Can you make me a list of ALL rulers of the family based just on the information in the page (BTW some of the successions which are eventually presented are wrong). With a family tree, we will know better and thoroughly the members of the family (not just Fosdinovo, Massa-Carrara and some scratchy succession lists!!!) Mhmrodrigues (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Obviously. I'm editing the page in a draft, but it will be a page soon. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ANYBIO; so this isn't a notable subject. Further, fails pillar policy WP:NOT, as original research. Mhmrodrigues, an encyclopedia isn't the place to record history. Rather, it's a place to summarize and paraphrase what others have already written in reliable sources. Not one single thing can come from things you know, have been told, have seen or have induced or deduced. Nothing. At all. The entire content of what you are trying to contribute must be paraphrased from reliable published sources. The article was draftified once for you to work on outside the encyclopedia. You reversed that, so this is what happens. 174.254.192.213 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@174.254.192.213: Hi! It's not from an encyclopedia! Litta and Branchi are independent authors. If I can't find other sources it's because I couldn't find them on Internet. Google only allows me to see volume II of Branchi's work, and Litta is available in the Gallica page. It's frustrating when you can't find what you want afte searching a lot, and above that, people who accuse you of not doing your work properly! Wikipedia should avoid original research, and this family tree is not original! Is based on Litta and Branchi's works, as shown in the Bibliography. The sketchy Pregola branch is based on a website that I'm to include in Bibkiography too! I just need TIME! Mhmrodrigues (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear case of WP:NOTGENEALOGY; "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." so delete per nom Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Hi! This artcile will obviously support the Malaspina family article, by offering a more complete family tree that was not shown in the page of the Malaspinas. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have to justify myself everytime? Aren't my reasons enough? Can't you wait for me to finish the draft and then judge? Please, understand my point of view. It is an article IN CONSTRUCTION. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the article isn't ready then why did you move it out of the draft space? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae:, you moved my article to draft. Can you support me here, please? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: @EDG 543: @Praxidicae: @Spiderone: @Kbabej: Can someone explain me why was the draft deleted when it is the page that is in risk of deletion? I asked for time to submit my draft! Mhmrodrigues (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing because it's wildly out of WP:SCOPE, as is this article. Please also don't mass ping users to AFD. CUPIDICAE💕 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhmrodrigues, the user who performed the action merged the draft with this article, a questionable decision in my opinion. It does, however, clear up the space so that this article can be moved to the draftspace while it is under construction...If you would prefer that over potential deletion. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 14:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDG 543 Now I'm confused. So, I didn't move the article to the draftspace in the first place...I'll have to create a new draft. Luckily I was afraid that this could happen and saved my editions elsewhere... Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be moved to draft while the AFD is ongoing as it's still out of scope. CUPIDICAE💕 14:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Moved to a new draft! Praxidicae sorry, I've only seen your message now. I have to do something as no one is on my side... - Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae EDG 543 The alternative is to publish the family tree in the Malaspina family page... Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhmrodrigues, friend, you should not have copy/pasted the article to the draft, it needed to be physically moved from here to there, which I or another editor could have done for you. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDG 543 this is bad advice, as the AFD is already ongoing and has multiple comments from other people other than the nom and creator, it should not be moved to draftspace unless the AFD concludes it should be drafitified. Mhmrodrigues incorporating this into the main article is still inappropriate as Wikipedia is not a genealogy service and it requires original resesarch which is not allowed. CUPIDICAE💕 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, I fully agree (I was the one who nominated it for deletion in the first place). However, the author insists that the article has much work to do, and I thought it at least deserved a chance as a draft while he completed it. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDG 543 Thank you for your support, but I would only add more branches. I've already recognized that this was a bad idea. Praxidicae I'll do, however, the table of rulers, in the Malaspina family page. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete per my previous comments. This is not a candidate for draftification or merging as it is in violation of the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not an ancestry service, every member of any given family with notable people does not make every single one themselves notable. It also requires original research and the family tree itself is not subject to independent reliable sources. CUPIDICAE💕 15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae Ok, I understand your point. Very well, I won't oppose. I'll delete my draft myself. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I've emptied the draft, but I can't find the deletion button. Can you do it for me, please? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae EDG 543 I've taken for example the German genealogical lists (Stammlists), but it seems that's not possible in the English Wikipedia. Sorry, I thought otherwise... Mhmrodrigues (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and yes, the wikisignificant/relevant members of this family are covered at Malaspina family (and before i get a response to this, please have a read of WP:BLUDGEON). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stagecoach South. Daniel (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet Buzz[edit]

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

Not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not be deleted. A part of the Stagecoach in Hants & Surrey network has been shaped thanks to Fleet Buzz. It has been significantly documented over its 20 year existence. Grandtubetrains (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grandtubetrains: Please cite at least 3 pieces of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. SK2242 (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SK2242: There are several sources that stated Fleet Buzz in their declining times. One such is Coach & Bus Week.^[1] Another is the WLTM Transport Blog.^[2] The final source is the GOV UK's Companies House website.^[3] Grandtubetrains (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not reliable and government listings do not show notability. So that’s only 1 source. SK2242 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stagecoach South. Nightfury 08:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found another source.^[4] Grandtubetrains (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enthusiast websites aren’t reliable and so cannot be used for establishing notability. SK2242 (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as an alternative to deletion to Stagecoach South. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of House Building Finance Corporation cricketers. Consensus to delete; redirecting to list as WP:ATD since it's a plausible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Ahmed (HBFC and Income Tax Department cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago, I reminded this editor about the closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides a very weak presumption of notability that is unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of House Building Finance Corporation cricketers. Trivial pass of NCRIC but fails to meet GNG levels of sourcing. This is an established alternative to deletion for articles about cricketers. The Urdu language wikipedia page linked has even less sourcing that this one, so I feel it's unlikely detailed sources exist in the circumstances. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2021 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy Company[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page should be deleted because it does not meet WP:GNG. Nor do the sources constitute significant coverage per WP:GNG. More over, the sources are not necessarily about the subject itself. The sources are promotional links, i.e. Gift Guides. The page is also written as promotional content and not neutral in tone. Megtetg34 (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page's subject has received significant coverage in cited articles published by Inverse and Rebellious Magazine. The sources that are not necessarily about the company itself nevertheless mention the company and address products specifically released by the company, and are independent of said company. Minutes ago, I attempted to reduce the perceived promotional tone of the article's prose, and would appreciate help with further adjustments. —Matthew - (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You say he sources that are not necessarily about the company itself. Therefore the sources cannot be used to establish notability of the company according to WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: The page's subject has not received significant coverage. I understand that you wrote the article and want to keep it, but the rules of WP:GNG are clear. 1 source is from the company About Us page, 2 of the sources are gift guides, a 4th source doesn't even discuss the subject at all. It is about a designer, independent of the subject. A 5th source briefly mentions the subject's product in a product description along with dozens of others. It's not an article either. The 2 sourced articles from Dread Central aren't articles either. They are product reviews. The article from Fangoria is a dead link, there is no article. The source from Bloody Disgusting is the same product review already cited. There's 2 articles here that could be counted towards the subject. However, of the 2, I would not consider Rebellious Magazine a notable publication. It is a local publication that only services the Chicagoland area and rules are clear about those types of local publications as well. I'd be happy to help you rewrite the article when there is enough news about the subject to rewrite. The subject is not notable and it does not pass WP:GNG. The page is promotional content only, and therefore should be deleted. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(duplicate !vote struck. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:43, 9 February 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bulundi[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM, only thing found is a book that appears to just be a database style publication. Tagged for notability since November 2014. Prod removed with edit summary "no PROD". Donaldd23 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable Hindi film by notable actors Raaj Kumar, Danny Denzongpa, Kim, Asha Parekh. This film was a blockbuster hit film of its time, so it passes WP:GNG Walrus Ji (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Walrus Ji, having notable actors means nothing when proving notability for a film, read WP:NOTINHERITED. As for the film being a "blockbuster", could you provide a source for that claim other than your word? Donaldd23 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was a super star. It is rare for their films to be non notable. Even the business done by the movie at the rates of 1980 shows that it was a block buster. In addition the dialogues of that movie are even being published in newspapers of today [38] [39]. Passes WP:NFILM. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good case for keeping an article about the actor...but neither one of those articles mentions the film Bulundi. By my count, it still fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not forget that this is a Hindi movie. The two links I posted "DOES" mention the film. Just because you might not be able to read something, does not mean it does not exist. Walrus Ji (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ran them through Google Translate and the quotes in the first link are not attributed to any film, they are just quotes. The second one does attribute quotes to a particular film, but I do not see this one listed. Also, quotes do not, in itself, make a film notable. There needs to be reviews WP:NFILM. Can you find any? Donaldd23 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Point 6 in my link 1 has the popular dialogue from this film along with the name of this film in Devnagri script. Even after forty years of its release the movie dialogues are quoted in newspapers. A good sign for WP:GNG Walrus Ji (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NFO: review reflecting on the film four decades later,^[1] film's poster included in text on Indian cinema posters,^[2] reflection on the film 40 years later,^[3] 14th highest grossing film in India in 1981^[4] (out of 750 films produced that year^[5]).

References

^ Chintamani, Gautam (13 November 2018). "Raj Kumar, Asha Parekh's Bulandi is a mainstream Hindi masala film with art-house sensibilities - Entertainment News , Firstpost". Firstpost.
^ Dickey, Sara. Living Pictures: Perspectives on the Film Poster in India. Open Editions. p. 188. ISBN 978-0-949004-15-4.
^ Shirke, Ulhas (21 January 2021). "Down Memory lane…. 40 years of Raaj Kumar starrer film 'Bulundi' | Magz Mumbai". www.magzmumbai.com.
^ "Box Office 1981". Box Office India. Archived from the original on 1 February 2009.
^ Sethi, Sunil (15 January 1982). "Year 1981 was for Indian movies what 1977 had been for Indian politics". India Today.

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Goldsztajn plus "When Bulundi was released , Shaan was the only new generation hero . But the success of that film and those that followed really got to his head." ([40]) --Soman (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided above. Dhawangupta (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion which shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view. The First Post retrospective review is particularly convincing imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VictorsFood[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since it was created in 2014. And I couldn't find substantial coverage that passes WP:COMPANY - most coverage seems to be PR, passing mentions or routine coverage. The article itself seems to be padded with sources that are PR, unrelated, unsubstantial, or about the founder rather than the company. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excessively promotional article. I agree that there is a paucity of reliable sources to be found as those that turn up in searches are press releases and promotional pieces. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on significant editing of page since nomination. I have significantly edited the page to meet requirements, with appropriate sources, however given how sparse the page is now, it may still not be sufficient to meet GNG. I think it is fair to say that the subject just scrapes by, but I have conducted a thorough internet search as well as a database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (which includes more content that what is freely available via Google etc) and there isn't a lot, certainly no truly significant coverage in reliable major sources. I also note the article's creator is a SPA and the page certainly was promotional and at least failed NPOV. Cabrils (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cabrils: Thanks for your work in cleaning up the article and for finding those sources :) I personally don't think two sources is enough to pass notability - Or, if it is, it seems very borderline and doesn't seem to meet the WP:SUSTAINED part of notability yet (both sources are from the same week in October 2011) or the WP:CORPDEPTH part of organization notability that allows for more than "a very brief, incomplete stub". But I also don't have access to those sources (so I can't see the depth of them). Could you give some insight into what the two sources are about or what they say about the company, and/or could you share the links? - Whisperjanes (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Whisperjanes: Apologies for the belated response. I've added links to the articles found via the ProQuest database, but you might not be easily about to access them. In case you didn't know, the Sydney Morning Herald is a major Australian newspaper: "Tours cover fertile ground as the Crave food festival continues, writes Sandra Siagian. South-west's best: Victor Pisapia's food philosophy is simple: cook with local produce whenever possible. The chef and founder of VictorsFood, a company in Waterloo that runs cooking classes, training and food tours, says it is the main message behind his business. On his Regional Flavours tour during the Crave festival, Pisapia looks at the best produce south-west Sydney has to offer. He shares his favourite market spots around Leppington and includes trips to Campisi Fine Food & Deli, Bringelly Pork and Bacon smokehouse, Australian Mushroom Company and Leppington fig farm. Along the way there are cooking demonstrations, taste tests and an opportunity to meet growers. Pisapia describes the tour as "farm to plate". At the lunch stop, he cooks fruit, vegetables and pork collected earlier in the day. It could be fig salad, mushroom risotto, blue corn crepes or steamed tamales. There's also wine tasting. The tour departs and returns to Danks Street, Waterloo. Saturday, $165, 1300 206 163." and the North Shore Times is a local/suburban paper, so not very reputable: " IF YOU want to add a touch of drama to your culinary performance, not to mention the subtle flavour of a liqueur without the actual alcohol, then firing up a flambe is for you. Flambe means flaming or igniting foods that have had liquor or liqueur added to the pan to give the finished dish a little extra flavour. As a rule of thumb, choose liqueurs that have at least 40 per cent alcohol. Too much more and they may be too flammable, too little and they may fail to ignite. You should also choose a variety of alcohol that complements the food you are cooking. For instance, a fruit-flavoured brandy will suit fruit-based desserts, while whisky or cognac enhance meat. Victor Pisapia, who owns and runs VictorsFood which organises culinary experiences, including cooking classes and corporate events said there were some key rules to follow. Prepare your ingredients and equipment before you start and keep a large lid on hand in case you need to extinguish the flames. Use a special flambe pan or a large fry-pan with a long handle and heat the food before you add the alcohol or it won't flame. Never pour liquor from the bottle straight into the pan and definitely no walking around with the flaming pan in your hands. Details: victorsfood.com. au." I generally agree with your summary BTW. Cabrils (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As per above explained. Pilean (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tagged for notability since 2014. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references contain links so difficult to check, but I found the first reference here at the journalist's website. It can clearly be seen to be promotional and relying entirely on the information provided by the company, therefore fails WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a Directory or Yellow Pages. There is zero indication within the article on why this topic is notable, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see this earlier version of the article for a more thorough assessment of the topic's notability. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 20:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Payne (news anchor)[edit]

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

Not notable television personality. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment:~~ the revdel'd copyvio content establishes he has won the Peabody Award and the Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award. I believe this establishes a claim to notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Having looked into these...the station won the awards for coverage Payne was involved in. WP:NOTINHERITED accordingly, and doesn't appear to be otherwise notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total failure to have the multiple, independent, secondary reliable sources providing significant coverage that is the basic minimum of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only source provided is not independent. Royal broil 14:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss The Bushranger's comment and investigate potential notability/where did that copyvio content come from? Can it be used as a RS?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST. KidAd talk 01:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable journalist/local TV anchor. —Kbabej (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST. Rondolinda (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all above, non-notable. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahima Dramé[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL due to making five short substitute appearances in the 2014 season, when the Norwegian top men's football league was allegedly 'fully professional'. Spent the rest of his career thundering about in the lower divisions - fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the usual comments on tenuous NFOOTBALL barely-passes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. 63 minutes of professional play is not good enough here. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 26 goals and counting in all games-looks like it passes NFOOTBALL. This article should be expanded if possible. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That particular stat is unsourced and his numbers at fotball.no/ are rather less impressive. Anyway, I was no stranger to rippling the ol' onion bag during my flat-footed efforts in the after-work five-a-sides. Does that mean I get an article? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is an alleged cup appearance during the Brann season so, if that proves true, this guy potentially has 6 appearances at the top level Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of goals in low divisions does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a notable footballer with the exact same name but they are clearly different people. This particular Dramé should be deleted but no prejudice against creating an article on the other guy Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 14 February 2021 (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.