< January 12	January 14 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Transportation of the president of the United States. If anyone wants to merge the content from behind the redirect, feel free. Daniel (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space Force One[edit]

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

The article is about a call sign that does not exist, but might exist in the future if the organization ever has responsibility for transporting the US President. Single source in article is an FAA document that does not mention the subject. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: t | c | a 23:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if that doesn't violate WP:CRYSTALBALL, I don't know what does. No coverage or even speculation from reliable sources. Aside from this mildly amusing political cartoon, it doesn't even appear that anyone has thought about the issue. If this call sign is ever used, then an article might be appropriate, but until then it's just the intersection of speculation and original research. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is probably under WP:Crystal because that this is unverifiable, and is pure speculation. ThatIPEditor (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA document states for all military services; having this article is consistent with having an article for Coast Guard One which has also never flown. Coast Guard two has happened, but to be consistent either Space Force One should exist or Coast Guard One should not exist and that page should be moved to Coast Guard Two Alpacaaviator (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for violating WP:CRYSTALBALL. Setreis (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is it is just the dictionary definition. Making it worse, it is a dictionary definition for a term there is no evidence people have ever used, because it describes something that there has existed. If it has been used it would be in some obscure work of science fiction, and even there it might be a very obscure reference indeed. "I got a call from President George P. Bush while he was traveling aboard Space Force One". There it has been used, but that does not make it notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I would love for this to be able to be expanded, as of now it simply falls under WP:DICDEF. While a real nomenclature, as pointed out above it has never been used, and is unlikely to be used in the near future, so WP:CRYSTAL would definitely apply. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you are going to delete this stub, make sure to redirect it to Transportation of the president of the United States and if possible expand a bit the info already found in this target page explaining that Space Force One/Two does not yet officially exist. This should help dissuade newbies from recreating this page ad infinitum. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 06:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what, if "recreati[on]...ad infinitum" occurs, WP:SALTing is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good-faith reminder. I have seen the SKYBLUELOCK before, IMO I would save salting for controversial cases. History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 12:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a forecast of WP:SNOW - WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 17 January 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. — The Earwig ^talk 01:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whaddon House[edit]

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

Buildings do not inherit notability from tenants and having famous tenants does not mean the building is historic. 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. // Timothy :: t | c | a 23:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: t | c | a 23:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: t | c | a 23:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the people are important enough, their houses get written about also. I don't know the literature in this area, but I'd be suprised if there weren't other discussions of where they lived at that stage in their career. And, at, worst, it 's probably mentioned or should be mentioned, in one of our other articles, and can be redirected there. It's a reasonable search term. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and DGG. It was written up in several books. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and brush up on the WP:BEFORE work. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all above. Setreis (talk) 16:23, 20 January 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) 13:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Tin Road Emergency Platform stop[edit]

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

Not a station, but an emergency stop point on a light rail line. The article does not have WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS showing it meets either WP:GNG. // Timothy :: t | c | a 23:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: t | c | a 23:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: t | c | a 23:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and this should have been prodded rather than brought to AfD. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, it would have been deprodded by a DE. // Timothy :: t | c | a 01:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to picture the situation where this gets deprodded under normal circumstances (i.e. without some bizarre coincidence granting it notability in the meantime). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure if an emergency light rail stop is even capable of being notable. This one certainly isn't: I can find nothing more than routine coverage of local traffic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not a station. One of several non-notable emergency platforms on the MTR network. Falsely presented in some aspects as a legitimate stop (e.g. it is presented in the infobox as being "serviced" by bus and LRT routes). Citobun (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable stop as per above. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable stop or station. Setreis (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG. If WP:BLP1E could apply to a railroad, this is it. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, but kudos to Bearian for making me laugh out loud. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge and redirect to the article on the loop-line. 219.73.73.107 (talk) 14:02, 17 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Houlton School[edit]

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

An unopened school which is under construction. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage about the construction project in local news, every under construction school will receive this type of coverage and it does not meet SIGCOV. // Timothy :: t | c | a 23:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: t | c | a 23:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: t | c | a 23:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this article is deleted then all other secondary school articles must be deleted except for famous secondary schools. You can't just decide to delete this one and leave the rest. If this is deleted then I will happily help get the other non-notable articles deleted. If this is deleted and the others are not then you're just being stupid Sirhissofloxley (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Sirhissofloxley (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Numerous non-notable schools are deleted on an almost daily basis, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools. This is by no means the only one up for discussion. Spiderone 13:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the decision in 2017 was that the rules for inclusion in the past on secondary schools were incorrect, and that in fact we should delete a lot of them. This article clearly does not pass our inclusion criteria for an organization, and so we should delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, currently it does not pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no point in deleting it and then recreating it in a few years. G-13114 (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability and fails WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS ^💬 05:32, 17 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaval Bathia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Poorly sourced. Some citations are sponsored content. Article creator has single-purpose account, most likely UPE or CoI. RationalPuff (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced and fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails and WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable media. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:16, 16 January 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 Nonie Darwish. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel and Usual Punishment[edit]

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

Merge to Nonie Darwish. This book lacks coverage in secondary sources. The article cites a single book review, but I can't see other significant coverage. VR _talk 22:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Can't find any other book reviews on the subject. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SOAP. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims of notability in the article, Nothing significant found on Google, Of the three reference, one does not mention the book the other is a minor mention. Jeepday (talk) 17:28, 19 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Gupta (author)[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Fails WP:NAUTHOR RationalPuff (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 15 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Lewis Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO GNG, only significant for minor appearances in Glee. PROD had no action taken. SanAnMan (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one minor role in a TV show does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:TOOSOON. Not yet notable enough to meet WP:GNG or even WP:NACTOR. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:52, 17 January 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 Care Bears#Characters. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Care Bear characters[edit]

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

Nearly all content outside of the lead is unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Care Bears. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 14:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Care Bears#Characters, where a general overview and descriptions of the major characters is already present. As mentioned in the nom, pretty much all of the information present in this list outside of the lead is completely unsourced. Searching for sources brings up a few hits on the more major characters, but not really much that would support this kind of list split off from the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per Rorshacma. Dronebogus (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. // Timothy :: t | c | a 14:54, 16 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zayyad Qayyum[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It goes to show how much more information can be written about an individual when focusing on their achievements if you want to stretch it out to several paragraphs. This is why I just like an article which states facts. Like I always say, any more material than the facts would frankly be just waffle. And that's true for every first-class player. As an U19 Test player there must be somewhere there is more written about this individual somewhere, although it will probably take some finding. Bobo . 23:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to List of Redco Pakistan Limited cricketers. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. Article is built entirely from wide ranging databases and match scorecards; no substantial sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As always, it's a credit to the project that we had the foresight to create these pages, especially when for years and years the same people who are now pushing deletionism were saying that these lists were unnecessary. Bobo . 17:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is time that we started actually enforcing the minimum requirements for notability on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree it seems silly to waste all this time going through this Deletion process over and over. Hope we tighten up the rules and guidelines for acceptance of New Articles to begin with. At least 2 working reliable references for the person's notability? Only 1 out of 2 external links worked for me and gave some information about the player. All the other 8 given references go to the same promotional ad of Cricket Archive with no info on Zayyad Qayyum. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:40, 17 January 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 Redco Pakistan Limited cricketers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Naeem (cricketer, born 1982)[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing here does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Redco Pakistan Limited cricketers due to not passing GNG Spiderone 18:14, 18 January 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) 05:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas Ahmed (Sind B cricketer)[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No other sources beyond the wide ranging databases and routine scorecards this article is built from; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a bit last year I thought would be the turning year against articles on truly non-notable people, but it really was not. Maybe this year will be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 15 January 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) 05:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Ahmed (Sind University cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No other sources beyond the wide ranging databases and routine scorecards this article is built from; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the developed consensus on Wikipedia that team sport players with 1 club game fail the encyclopedia's general inclusion guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 22:47, 15 January 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) 05:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burhanuddin (Khairpur cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No other sources beyond the wide ranging databases this article is built from; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time Wikipedia stopped being a cricket archive mirror.20:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nasim Ahmed (Khairpur cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No other sources beyond the wide ranging databases this article is built from; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is long past time we stopped accepting 1 first class appearance as enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the developed consensus on Wikipedia that team sport players with 1 club game fail the encyclopedia's general inclusion guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 22:47, 15 January 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) 06:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mushtaq Butt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No other sources beyond the wide ranging databases this article is built from; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable cricket player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the developed consensus on Wikipedia that team sport players with 1 club game fail the encyclopedia's general inclusion guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 22:46, 15 January 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) 06:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burhanuddin (Sukkur cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- another database scrape stublet about a person of whose life and career we know nothing. No indication of meeting our notability requirements. Not only that, but the databases don't agree on crucial details, making this a problem with WP:V. Reyk _YO! 10:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No other sources beyond the wide ranging databases this article is built from, but they don't agree so this also fails WP:V; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the basic minimum threshold for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the developed consensus on Wikipedia that team sport players with 1 club game fail the encyclopedia's general inclusion guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 22:46, 15 January 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) 06:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz-ur-Rehman (Sukkur cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No other sources beyond the wide ranging databases this article is built from; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the developed consensus on Wikipedia that team sport players with 1 club game fail the encyclopedia's general inclusion guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 22:46, 15 January 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) 06:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siddiq Khan (cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No other sources beyond the wide ranging databases this article is built from; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for it fails WP:GNG. I found nothing through my surf. - Yitbe ^A-21 13:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete if we can remove a lot of these articles on non-notable cricket players it will greatly help Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the developed consensus on Wikipedia that team sport players with 1 club game fail the encyclopedia's general inclusion guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 22:45, 15 January 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) 06:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imtiaz Ahmed (Sukkur cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No other sources beyond the wide ranging databases this article is built from; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable cricketer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the developed consensus on Wikipedia that team sport players with 1 club game fail the encyclopedia's general inclusion guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 22:44, 15 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Stanchov[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer with no significant coverage outside of his death. WP:1E. ².O.^Boxing 21:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More sources appear if you search for his assumed name "Isus Velichkov", but the coverage is still largely confined to his death and the revelations that followed it. – Uanfala (talk) 13:39, 16 January 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 Michael Howard, 21st Earl of Suffolk. Daniel (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Stanhope, Countess of Harrington[edit]

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

I don't see an ounce of independent notability. Known only through marriages/kinship. WP:NOTINHERITED. Geschichte (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete marriage to low level nobles is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one or other of her husbands, who as earls are notable (and not "low-level"). Ingratis (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate target, which is what we've done probably 100 times. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to which, if any, husband?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on previous !vote above: redirect to her first husband Michael Howard, 21st Earl of Suffolk, because he has children by her, including the (probable) future 22nd earl. Ingratis (talk) 00:17, 16 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Helicopter Association[edit]

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

The only sourcing I could find was passing mentions and press releases. No indication of meeting GNG, much less WP:NORG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, could not find sources to meet WP:NORG or WP:ORGDEPTH. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure I find several mentions in books, but google is only showing snippets for most of them. I find several minor mentions of the organization like these three I get the impression, that support for WP:GNG is in books that Google is not displaying fully for Copyright reason. These a real weak reasons to keep so not voting to keep. If someone has better references to post ping me. Jeepday (talk) 18:08, 19 January 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 Aulus Postumius Albinus (consul 99 BC). If anyone wishes to merge content from behind the redirects, they are welcome to do so at their own volition. Daniel (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aulus Postumius Albinus (propraetor 110 BC)[edit]

I am also nominating the following related page:

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

The two men in question are identical with Aulus Postumius Albinus (consul 99 BC), as is explained in the article. The offices ascribed to each, "propraetor 110 BC" and "praetor 89 BC" are also incorrect. Avilich (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It's the same man, but the other titles are valid search terms considering Postumius is sometimes listed separately, especially in the older literature, such as the RE you cite. T8612 (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped nobody would suggest to redirect. Again, the offices are both wrong. 'praetor 89 BC' appears in no source whatsoever and simply cannot be right. 'propraetor 110 BC' is not only incorrect as well, but that page in turn also has two incorrect redirects, one giving him the unattested cognomen 'Magnus' and the other spelling his name as 'Postimius'. All of these seem completely unhelpful. Avilich (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cleanup of superfluous and inaccurate information. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a job for an AFD, this should be handeled with a merge discussion.★Trekker (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is, as the one above accurately said, "cleanup of superfluous and inaccurate information", and thus most certainly a job for AfD. Avilich (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: besides the possibility that there are at least two separate men here, Broughton does identify the one from 110 as legatus pro praetore, which would seem to justify the title, although I see nothing in Broughton to indicate that the one from 89 was praetor in that year—it could be that he was simply known to have been of praetorian rank, which description seems less likely if he had been consul ten years earlier. All three entries could certainly be handled in one article simply by indicating that these two could possibly be different men, or have been so treated in some scholarship—but as ★Trekker says, that's really merger, not deletion. I'm unsure as to whether the former titles are plausible redirects, although the one from 89 seems less likely to be. Remember, the justification for keeping a redirect isn't that it's a correct alternative, but less useful title, but that someone might look for it, not realizing that the person described is under another title. And if someone is identified as such in well-known sources, including older literature, then it's a plausible search term, even if later scholarship suggests that he was the same as another man. P Aculeius (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None seems particularly plausible: 99% of people who find the article will have done so through a link on another wikipedia page or through the disambiguation page. Practically no one will know beforehand what a propraetor even is, and, even if they do, they will not think to search for it outright. Unless a redirect is spontaneously created or accounts for a possible spelling mistake, it is not 'plausible'. The fact that one simply exists already does not mean it's plausible or desirable either. The problem here is simple: we have two lower-quality articles which simply repeat information from an already existing one, under a mistaken label. The solution is natural and obvious: delete the two articles. Arguing that for some reason this should not be done, to the possible, non-immediate and brief benefit of some hypothetical person in the future, is an unreasonable stretch and unnecessary overcomplication. Avilich (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also agree that this is the task of an article merge + redirect and is not for AfD. Ford MF (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, both articles have duplicate, incorrect and misleading information, they need to be deleted. Avilich (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all -- It may all be the same man. At worst we end off with a dab-page covering more than one person. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read anything I said above? All the alternative labels are wrong and misleading. This is "cleanup of superfluous and inaccurate information", the natural and simple solution is to delete. Avilich (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, redirect or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, once again. This should not have been complicated. We have three articles which represent the same person, two of which are simply incomplete, low-quality duplicates of the third, and thus 100% redundant. The obvious solution is to simply delete the two redundant and incorrect articles. The second to respond above said all that was needed to be said: "Delete as cleanup of superfluous and inaccurate information". Merging only applies when distinct (not identical) content is being transferred to another page; its clueless proponents have either not elaborated on their reasons or seem to have misunderstood the point here. None of the two wrong titles are particularly plausible as search terms (as I argued above), ergo no reason for redirecting (it's not Wikipedia's job to account for every single 'plausible' mistake). This is all a simple cleanup measure like any other. Avilich (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check your nomination statement and I think you will see that you nowhere said the articles were 100% redundant, only that the titles were wrong in two of them. I can understand your frustration, but your nomination is does not explain the actual problem requiring deletion. And deletion is not cleanup, so you should find a better word. Srnec (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I said they're the same person, so they're redundant. Your linked essay has nothing to do with the issue at hand, since articles duplicating content do not meet notability standards and do not qualify for speedy keeping. The only reason these three articles exist is because it was formerly thought that each referred to a different person; this is now known not to be the case, so this deletion just so happens to be a cleanup measure. Avilich (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are only redundant if the information in them completely overlaps. If there is good info in one that is not in the other, then they should be merged and only afterwards should we consider whether a certain redirect ought to be deleted. This is why people are saying "merge". Wrong titles are normally fixed through WP:RM, bad redirects through WP:RFD and the normal procedure for handling articles that are about the same subject is to merge them. Your nomination fails to give a reason to delete and that is why this has turned out to be complicated. You have to make the argument, not leave it to others to figure it out. You are calling people clueless but you're the one who was supposed elaborate your reasons at the start, not after relisting. Srnec (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information just so happens to completely overlap indeed, and none of the nominated articles are too big that one can't figure it out after skimming through for a few seconds. My description of the editors' cluelessness is based not just on this discussion but also external interactions with them elsewhere too. That none of them even bothered to explicitly say merge, but instead labeled their ill-informed misgivings under a comment out of insecurity, just proves my point. The standard policy for handling duplicates is to delete them. Avilich (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Labelling people clueless and insecure is surely a winning strategy in a discussion. Srnec (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So is not doing it in this case; might as well tell the truth. Those I have in mind probably won't look here again to defend their own encumbering arguments anyway, so whatever, it makes no difference. Avilich (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Srnec (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects. I rest my case, if a historian like Münzer considered there were three Aulii Postumi at the same time, it is still valid to have these redirects, even if he was obviously wrong. Moreover Broughton lists Aulus Postumius Albinus as "legatus pro praetore" in 111 BC, a distinction that is not that obvious. Same for the "praetor 89 BC", it's wrong, yes, but there was an Aulus Postumius commanding that year too. Finally, Wikipedia has contaminated a large part of the internet and people may be looking for these search terms. I don't think it hurts to create redirects, just to prevent inexperienced editors from creating these articles in the future. T8612 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are endless possibilities for alternative links if one is going to account for every single 'plausible' mistake in the realm of possibility. An inexperienced editor might create just about any of these, and it's surely more practical to simply clean up a mess in the rare occasion one is done rather than try to preempt every single one of them. People will eventually stop looking for those search terms once they're removed from the source of contamination, wikipedia.

Münzer's entries are not available on WS so the reach of his conclusions are limited. The RE does not, incidentally, give any of the three a title/label (only a number), as the nominated articles do. 'Praetor 89' comes solely from a misinterpretation of Plutarch's description of Albinus as a 'praetorius', but Orosius calls him 'consularis', so from this one could create a new (wrong) redirect, 'consul 89', and we again return to the original argument of where to draw the limit. 'Propraetor 110' is perhaps conceivable, but it spans multiple years (covering yet more potential redirects) and most people don't know what that is, and as such won't search for it. In any event, both 'propraetor 110' and 'praetor 89' had next to zero views before I nominated them for deletion, so both formulations are as unlikely as any other. Avilich (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If turned into redirects, they should be tagged with R from incorrect name. Srnec (talk) 01:08, 16 January 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) 06:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at Dubai International Cricket Stadium[edit]

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

Hundreds are pretty common on this cricket ground. We should keep such lists only for grounds where it is prestigious to score a hundred. Fails WP:NLIST, no coverage in WP:RS about this list as a group. Störm (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for same reason:

Thanks. Störm (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTIINFO WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:FANCRUFT all sourced from ESPNCricinfo which can be easily found on its Statsguru. Ajf773 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate statistical database; no indication or evidence of importance to warrant an entry in a general encyclopaedia Spiderone 22:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:LISTCRUFT. No substantial coverage of these intersections so fails WP:NLIST; also fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need of specific list in this case. NavjotSR (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Just stats. This is an encyclopedia not a stats site. Nigej (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Delete all to a point. I understand all the points made about them not following WPs, but could someone explain/direct me to what makes these grounds unworthy compared to a numerous amount of others? If these lists are too stats-based, doesn't that make any list about centuries/five-wicket hauls by players or at grounds? Joalhe1997 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think it would apply to players - quite often we hear of someones nth Test century. Never heard a commentator say that its the 47th Test century at Manchester (or whatever). So it would perhaps apply to other grounds, except probably Lord's where getting a Test century is actually notable. Nigej (talk) 18:25, 17 January 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) 06:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Singh Rathore[edit]

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

Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON, but right now a clear case of WP:BIO1E, and not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to passing WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable singer at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable media. Coverage only for one incident. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:18, 16 January 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. This is the dictionary definition of WP:OR, and the one dissenting comment did not address this at all. Daniel (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Life spans of home appliances[edit]

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

This is quite possibly the most WP:OR ridden article I've ever seen on Wikipedia while simultaneously being the most useless. Products lifespans have no one size fits all but especially in such broad areas with thousands of manufacturers for any given product. Anything that can be reasonably and reliably sourced can be merged into Home appliance, which is still a stretch. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the fact that life spans of appliances range from different manufacturers, the life spans of appliances can range dramatically depending on the use of appliance, maintenance, etc. there is no way to incorporate such variables into the article to make it accurate. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: exceptionally clear example of OR. // Timothy :: t | c | a 02:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Home_appliance#Life_spans or Planned life spans of home appliances. I see I made this quite a few years ago. I never add things without a reference and all data I input is based on sources (and there are sources for the life expectancies listed, see the reflist). @Jayjay, @TimothyBlue, you mention that the lifespans of the machine depend on many parameters. While true, in most instances, home appliances are planned to last for only a certain length of time (planned obsolescense). This tends to be measured in testing labs, where the machine is used many times by another machine, until breaking point. So, with the article, I actually refer to the "Planned life spans of home appliances". I think it's a shame to remove the info (I don't care if the article itself is deleted though, as long as the info is then moved to Home appliance). Its important to list the info to get a baseline so that at the very least consumers know the baseline planned life span.

--Genetics4good (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is original research. Ajf773 (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These aren't the average life spans of home appliances, but the average life spans of a selection of home appliances in one country from a 13 year old study. The items with alternate sources are also problematic (e.g. the lightbulb lifespan of 1,000 hours refers to the period 1923-1940). The article appears to have been created as a WP:SOAPBOX regarding planned obsolescence, hence the second unreferenced columns in the tables. ----Pontificalibus 14:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete per everyone else. Dronebogus (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see any way that this article could be rescued and turned into an encyclopaedia article Spiderone 14:22, 17 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. Ravi[edit]

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

BLP of a police officer (IPS) sourced from run-of-the-mill professional achievements and promotions etc. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a run-of-the-mill police officer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:31, 13 January 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) 06:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamale Guy[edit]

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

absolutely no reason for a just a regular guy of zero note or importance to have a wikipedia page Honey-badger24 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — 17 sources doesn't sound like zero importance. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 18:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is quite a bit of local coverage of this guy, but it is local coverage. If we keep it, we need to rename it to his actual name, but this article really comes too close to WP:BIO1E. What can you possibly say about him? "He's a street vendor who sells tamales in Chicago and he was hospitalized once due to contracting the coronavirus." If that's it, I don't know why we would have an article. Is there maybe room to merge this and mention him in Culture of Chicago, if he is in fact so well-known there? That article covers food-related topics. FalconK (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep-- I started the article. He's very well known and good enough for respected sources like the Chicago Tribune. He's also got a restaurant now, so he's not just a man, but a full-on brick-and-mortar business. Victor Grigas (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~-- so, everyone who gets interviewed by a local newspaper deserves their own wikipedia entry?? That's some really heavy cope you got going there. He's a nobody. Making a wikipedia article so your buddy can get some free advertising is pretty disgusting, and shouldn't be on wikipedia. Honey-badger24 (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, please don't accuse me of a conflict-of-interest without evidence. He's not by buddy and I'm not advertising. This business has had a wide range of press locally. Well-established restaurants can be notable, and there is no policy against it. I've started a few articles about restaurants in Chicago, and I see you have felt the need to nominate all of them for deletion (for some reason). I have no business or personal relationships with any of them. Also I have no idea what "heavy cope" is. Victor Grigas (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is violating WP:DISCUSSAFD by !voting for their own nomination and so I have struck this. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or better Merge. I believe merging would be the best option as the guy is indeed well-known locally. But I don't find the right target - Chicago is more an overview and the guy belongs to contemporary urban culture. However I don't think he is notable enough for a stand alone article. Less Unless (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been extensive coverage of this person specifically and so they pass WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rename) references in the article such as [1] are sufficient. (Disclaimer: I started an article on San Francisco's Tamale Lady.) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fucking retarded how Wikipedia is now basically Yelp! Dogshit articles like this one about a nobody make a mockery of this site. Wow, they were in the news, so what? The convenience store near my house was in the news too because someone had a heart attack in there once, am I allowed to make an article on that? The author is probably getting kickbacks from the business he's shilling for Honey-badger24 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, 1.) This is the second time you have accused me of a conflict-of-interest without evidence. I don't live near this business. I live in Massachusetts, a thousand miles away from Chicago. I have no relationship with this business. I have received no forms of payment from this business. You have objected to the existence of this article and it is being judged by the Wikipedia editing community as to whether or not it is notable, I'm afraid that your suspicions are unfounded conjecture. 2.) "fucking retarded" and "Dogshit" are insults and violate civility rules. Unless you seek to be banned I suggest you modify your tone. Wikipedia is not Yelp!, nor is it Twitter, there are rules of comportment. Victor Grigas (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability guidelines. Peter303x (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for substantive discussion of the sources in the article, which hasn't really occurred. Also, please leave the epithets out of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Local sources are not an impediment to the existence of notoriety, since WP:N does not require sources to be national or international, it only requires the existence of secondary and reliable sources. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Chicago Tribune coverage is excellent, and the multiple articles tracking his Covid hospitalization indicate that he's well-known. WBEZ coverage is also good. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BASIC. Setreis (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC (and it isn't a particularly close call). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Extensive coverage, WP:BASIC passed. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Rename Seems to be local only, however rename seems appropriate. Onursides (talk) 19:09, 19 January 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) 06:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary_Annaïse_Heglar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mary Annaïse Heglar

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

Because there was opposition to a quick deletion on the article's Talk page, I propose a deletion below.

The subject has tweeted that a biography of her is not welcome because of privacy concerns. The deletion policy does suggest that "biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." I've added a clarification template on the consensus prose (consensus to keep or delete?). In any case, this is a relatively unknown, non-public figure who requests deletion. Please keep in mind that suggesting women must have a page for their own good and to increase Wikipedia diversity is insular and naive to the risks women, especially BiPoCs face given extra publicity/scrutiny. -Reagle (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject stated that the article is outdated, and is worried about her privacy^[1]. This also brings up an issue with the Right to be forgotten, and how it applies to Wikipedia. That being said, Jimmy Wales did say that "History is a human right"^[2], so it's hard to decide where to lean in this situation. In either case, the article is a stub, and should've at least been a draft until more information was added. Nigel757 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per the policy cited in nom, this is a clear case where we should honour a requested deletion by a page subject. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure this meets the criteria for "relatively unknown, non-public figures" -- she is a journalist, paid speaker, well respected writer, and hosts a podcast -- so is by definition a public figure. Its part of the reason I didn't feel confident using such a criteria in the first discussions. Sadads (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me this brings to mind AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Nicholson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Bynum-Coleman; my reading of the consensus over time is that we should take a compassionate interpretation of "relatively unknown". - Astrophobe (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Astrophobe: I think we need to change the written policy then if you think its an emerging consensus, because as a set of guidance for an admin -- it is actually not setting up the conditions for me to do an empowered interpretation like that. I suspect we will get more and more of these kinds of requests as we work on diversity topics in the movement, Sadads (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Deletion: The question would seem to be whether the subject is a non-public figure? As a published writer, with a podcast and a large online following I don't think this definition fits. For example the UK official Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that a person with a twitter following of over 30,000 "has the attention of a significant number of people" and for the purposes of their regulation is "a celebrity" (see https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/sanofi-uk-A19-557609.html ); Ms Heglar has 45,000 followers. It's also an argument that - whatever the numbers, as a published writer and a person active professionally in building a social media profile, she is seeking to be a public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrapalhado (talk • contribs) 12:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the case is at all borderline, we delete per request. Even without a request I would advocate deleting this article because it does not meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were better sources demonstrating that the subject satisfies WP:GNG I'd reconsider, but since she's requested deletion and the sources are very weak we should delete it. pburka (talk) 21:22, 19 January 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. Daniel (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Joshi[edit]

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

not yet notable. not an independent scientist , but a post-doc. The many 30-under-30. lists are best seen as promotional , but if they mean anything they mean , not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forbes has a profile of her. https://www.forbes.com/profile/priyanka-joshi/?sh=7297005e4049 They have articles about her work and quote her in this article https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2019/11/05/powerful-people-use-more-abstract-language-according-to-new-research/?sh=15b7ead53bbf and have her listed at https://www.forbes.com/sites/elliekincaid/2018/01/21/from-bionic-limbs-to-dinosaurs-30-under-30-europe-in-science-and-healthcare/?sh=5b17d14e1616 The 2018 Europe 30 Under 30 In Science And Healthcare. Dream Focus 20:05, 13 January 2021‎

[2] is an unreliable source (by a forbes contributor; see WP:FORBES) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other one is by a staff writer so it counts. Dream Focus 17:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

uh yeah, hence why I didn't mention it as unreliable... Whether a 60 word profile and one sentence mention is sigcov is a different question. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from Forbes, Vogue ranks her alongside Megan Markle, Ruth Davidson and Amal Clooney. That's notability now and our personal opinions are irrelevant. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She has her work mentioned by secondary and reliable sources. She was even included by Forbes in the list feature 300 young innovators. This is not promotional. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe Vogue and a Forbes list could put anybody in the category of notability no matter if they're a celebrity or in this case a scientist. Trillfendi (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The notoriety on Wikipedia is the existence of multiple secondary and reliable sources that cover the topic. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. "Someone is a postdoc" does not inherently strip them of notability much as not every independent scientist rises to it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Off to a reasonable start but nowhere near passing WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

WP:Too soon is an essay and so has "no official status" and so is not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's science citation levels [3] in a very high-cited field are not anywhere near passing WP:Prof. They may improve with time but WP:Not a crystal ball. Notability will have to be sought in the public relations activities. None of the keep votes say which category of notability they think she passes. I would be interested to know. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Weak delete. I do not give much weight to the 30 under 30 source, as it is (at least in this case) given for promise rather than accomplishment. The Vogue source, I do take seriously, and such mainstream coverage would normally convince me to !vote keep. But that article (like the Forbes one) is based entirely on her promise, and not yet on her WP:NPROF accomplishments; it moreover does not seem to be intellectually independent of the Forbes article. If she were to give up science tomorrow, and we were reviewing the article in 10 years, I think it would be an unambiguous delete. Since notability is not temporary, this leaves me !voting weak delete now per WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:27, 20 January 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) 04:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores Delmar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I've got no clue how this article lasted 14 years. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Received some intermittent coverage in newspapers as the result of her mysterious death but not enough to pass the notability requirements (WP:N). --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable sources are in the article and no reliable sources could be found - nothing but blogs - thus no notability has been shown. Clearly fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator; doesn't appear notable at all. You'd be surprise what can remain hidden on Wikipedia for long, especially when the article is barely linked anywhere. —Notorious4life (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is one of the oldest incidents falling under the "not news" heading, if not the oldest one I have seen. Yes, it was not "news" when the article was made, but the sourcing is built around new sourcing, nothing that adds up to permanent notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death of Dolores Delmar. Her death appears potentially notable, though her life, sadly, isn't. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:39, 17 January 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) 23:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 FC UTA Arad season[edit]

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

There would need to be something ground-breaking for this to justify its own article. Clearly not covered by WP:NSEASONS and fails WP:GNG. If anything notable did happen this season, it can be covered in the main article in one or two sentences (the FC UTA Arad is not so long that that would be a problem). Essentially, this article is an (incomplete) collection of statistics on a season that does not meet notability guidelines on its own; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Spiderone 19:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with nominator. Nothing notable. Doesn't pass requirements found in WP:N so delete. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Not really an article about their season, just a collection of stats. Nigej (talk) 20:07, 14 January 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) 23:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Rubanguka[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (only trivial coverage), and WP:NFOOTY (only caps in the Belgian First Amateur Division, no senior caps for Rwanda). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N criteria for retaining presumed notable subjects. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - second tier Greek appearances would allow him to pass NFOOTBALL but I couldn't find evidence of any games (checked GSA, Football Critic and Flashscore), best example of coverage is this which is not sufficient for GNG Spiderone 14:16, 14 January 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) 23:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korrakot Pipatnadda[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N criteria for retaining presumed notable subjects. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:03, 13 January 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) 19:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Izhan Nazrel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. The Malaysia Premier League isn't fully-pro, he hasn't made an appearance in the Malaysia Super League, and didn't represent Malaysia at senior level. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N criteria for retaining presumed notable subjects. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 14 January 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) 19:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naeem Charles[edit]

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

Has not played in one of the three listed professional leagues at WP:FPL in the States, failing WP:NFOOTBALL; USL League Two is a development league, NISA isn't listed at FPL and Westfalenliga 2 is in the second tier of the amateur leagues in Germany. Coverage during a WP:BEFORE search was trivial, failing WP:GNG. Spiderone 19:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE search reveals nothing of note. Subject fails WP:N criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as has been pointed out, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 15 January 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) 19:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharul Nazeem[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. The Malaysia Premier League isn't fully-pro, he hasn't made an appearance in the Malaysia Super League, and didn't represent Malaysia at senior level. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE search reveals nothing to make subject notable. Fails WP:N criteria. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:02, 13 January 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) 04:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virsa Arts[edit]

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

Non-notable production company. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ORG RationalPuff (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The 2014 item from Tribune India seems the best available source, but while it mentions Virsa Arts in a positive manner, I don't see that as enough to demonstrate more than a company which was going about its business to demonstrate that it attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:32, 18 January 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.

Scott Liss[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khushboo Jain[edit]

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

No significant roles played in multiple notable productions to qualify for WP:NACTOR. Also fails WP:GNG. Youtube link will not be consider for notability.PangolinPedia 17:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia 17:45, 13 January 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 January 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia 18:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia 18:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable playback singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 15 January 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) (t · c) buidhe 18:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qijue[edit]

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

Non-notable type of poetry. A stub that has been tagged for sources since 2009. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Google Books returns pages and pages of results on the terms "qijue poetry" and "shichigon-zekku". I didn't even need to look for the terms in Chinese and Japanese. Failure of WP:BEFORE. _dk (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Of all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these: "Nominator failed WP:BEFORE again." Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:42, 17 January 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 Amazon Prime#Prime Pantry. Daniel (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Prime Pantry[edit]

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

service discontinued, service has been discontinued, in some countries a while back - and integrated/merged into regular delivery service regardless of whether one has 'Prime' Kleo-Sine (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia preserves history and keeps articles of notable business entities even if they are discontinued. It's all part of the collective information record. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - no valid rationale for deletion given Spiderone 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - service has been discontinued, in some countries a while back - and integrated/merged into regular delivery service regardless of whether one has 'Prime' Kleo-Sine (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amazon Prime instead of deleting. Trillfendi (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amazon Prime#Prime Pantry, which appears to already duplicate the content of this article, word for word, including all sources. While I agree that the nomination did not provide a valid reason for straight Deletion, there is also no reason to have a duplicative article, especially when the content is not extensive enough to justify it being WP:SPLIT from the main topic. Rorshacma (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per above. Setreis (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Tim above: it doesn't matter that the service is discontinued; if it's a notable business (which I believe this is), it should be part of the collective information record. I am not aware of any policy stating companies/services that have been discontinued should have their articles deleted. Per a WP:BEFORE search, the following are references not currently used on the page: The Seattle Times, Progressive Grocer, Retail Wire, Mashed, CNBC, CNET, Fox News, and myriad others. --Kbabej (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: per above. Gerald WL 08:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amazon Prime#Prime Pantry: Article is a complete duplicate of content in the target article (A10 except for its age). There are not sources to show this merits a stand alone article. At best this is an unnecessary split, an example of creating an article for no other reason than to have another article. // Timothy :: t | c | a 14:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Timorhty and Rorshacma. Deletion nomination is invalid, notability is not temporary, but the article seems superfluous to the information in the Prime article. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:11, 20 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Loughton Cricket Club[edit]

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

Falls under WP:NORG and the available sourcing does not come close to meeting the standard of having multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the organization in significant detail. Additionally the advertising/SPAM is borderline for G11 and could be an additional reason, beyond lack of notability, to delete under policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Montgomery Black[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Three references to his faculty webpage, "God's Bible School and College", and one to an Amazon listing of, presumably, his book. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, no WP:GNG. Was Prodded, but here we are. Tagishsimon (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet SNG for academics. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 17:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy A7. It would be unusual indeed if a PhD candidate passed WP:NPROF; no sign of any other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The supposed Amazon "book" is listed as 21 pages and self-published; it has no citations and no reviews that I can find. Google Scholar finds only one publication by Nicholas M. Black (there are other Nicks or Nicholases Black with more, making it difficult to search other variants of his name), an uncited and unpublished manuscript. I agree with the comment above: this is not even close to passing any WP:PROF criterion, nor is any other form of notability visible. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Getting into no credible claim of significance territory. XOR'easter (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per alll above. Setreis (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't pass either WP:NSCHOLAR or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of passing any of the relevant notability guidelines, a borderline A7 case. The bit "an editor of a major work on the doctrine of Sanctification, and that of Wesleyan theology, with other religious works upcoming" suggests a possible COI situation as well, especially since the subject doesn't have a webpage. Nsk92 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of PROF or GNG notability. --Tataral (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- According to the WP page God's Bible School and College has a mere 320 students. I find it hard to believe that an ordinary staff member is likely to be notable (unless for other reasons): a principal might possibly be. The subject is currently a doctoral student, which suggests a junior staff member. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable 'academic'; poorly sourced, for a reason. Could have been A7 speedied, IMO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 18 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Left in Grisly Fashion[edit]

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

Can find no pro reviews or other media coverage, and the album is only present in the typical directories and streaming/retail sites. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deeds of Derangement by the same band. I do not recommend redirecting to the band because they have notability issues too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy notability requirements listed at WP:NMUSIC. I also do not propose to redirect as the potential target article (Prostitute Disfigurement) is also doubtful in terms of notability. HĐ (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band itself isn't notable enough, the album has no coverage. There's no point in redirecting to the band article. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:17, 18 January 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) 14:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan B. Banister[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. While his rank satisfies #2 of the SOLDIER ESSAY, he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS, just being a Rear Admiral is not inherently notable without significant achievements/coverage Mztourist (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER #2 as a flag officer, which consensus says makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is that "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article." even if they meet one of the six presumptions under SOLDIER. You can add Hans Schwedler, deleted yesterday, to your list. Mztourist (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:SOLDIER is "just an essay" then it cannot simultaneously be a valid basis for deletion, as strenuously argued here and many other previous AfDs. Kges1901 (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I always state WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG to make it clear that just meeting a presumption under SOLDIER isn't adequate without SIGCOV in multiple RS as required by both SOLDIER (though you choose to ignore it) and GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schwedler was a police officer and SS administrative officer, not a military officer. Shouldn't have been deleted, of course, but the usual suspects were obviously as determined as usual. The fact you're crowing about it just hammers the point home that deletion is your primary goal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lacked SIGCOV in multiple RS as required for anyone. "usual suspects" "crowing" just more of your personal attacks Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that you seem to be proud of yourself when you get something deleted. Not really in the spirit of Wikipedia in my opinion. I joined Wikipedia to expand knowledge, not delete it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out you frequently make veiled personal attacks on those who disagree with you and continue to push your own idiosyncratic interpretation of SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has entry in The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, thus meeting WP:ANYBIO #3, in addition to meeting WP:SOLDIER #1 and #2 due to being a flag officer with two Navy Crosses (multiple second level awards). Kges1901 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So he actually passes WP:SOLDIER on two counts. Didn't notice that. Makes the nomination even more ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:SOLDIER - flag officer; WP:ANYBIO ie. "received a well-known and significant award or honor" - awarded two Navy Crosses, plus the Peruvian Cross of Naval Merit (see here); WP:BASIC ie. multiple sources - NYT obit (from the article), The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography (from above). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER on two counts as a flag officer and for earning two Navy crosses; WP:ANYBIO though having an entry in The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, and WP:GNG through having widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not so sure the flag-officer bar is crossed as the article states it was a 'graveyard promotion', a practice where a retired officer in good standing is advanced one rank on death, i.e. he never wore stars while in service/alive. But it contributes to the potential notability; two Navy Crosses is a SOLDIER pass, which contributes definitively/further, and there's just enough on the reference rack to convince me that GNG is also met, as well as ANYBIO as mentioned above. Each individual assessment of notability is somewhat weakish but the sum of their parts is that this individual is, in fact, notable. The article is somewhat messy (especially the lede) but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:52, 20 January 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) 19:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kei Uchiyama[edit]

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

Has only played eight games since starting professional career which means it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. It also cites only one source and of course is a stub. –Cupper52^Discuss! 14:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 14:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 14:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 14:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kei has 34 appearances according to Soccerway in a WP:FPL and passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Nominator should have checked the one source and updated the article rather than nominating it for deletion. Dougal18 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 34 appearances (and counting!) in a WP:FPL - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Nominator has clearly not complied with WP:BEFORE. Giant Snowman 17:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In regards to both keep !votes: WP:FPL is not a guideline or policy on Wikipedia. It can not be used to validate or discredit a subject's inclusion. WP:NFOOTBALL is an SNG that can be used to presume notability for article creation. However, the article must still face the same scrutiny as all other articles to maintain inclusion when brought be fore an AfD. NFOOTBALL can not be the sole deciding factor in this case. Does the subject meet the basic requirements by our notability guideline found under WP:N. Does the subject receive "significant coverage in reliable and independent sources"? If the answer is yes then the article must be kept. If the answer is no then the presumed notability by the SNG (NFOOTBALL) is rebutted and the article should be removed not matter how many professional games they have played in or what league they belong in. GiantSnowman is correct that a WP:BEFORE search is expected of anyone who nominates and !votes on an AFD. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 17:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even if it is eight appearances at the top level league, that clearly makes the player notable. Doesnt seems like a failure of WP:NFOOTBALL Kashmorwiki (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conducted a WP:BEFORE search and can only find player profiles and game stats. This may add to notability, once established, but does not constitute "significant coverage in reliabel and independent sources" therefore the subject fails notability as per WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does clearly meet WP:NFOOTBALL with 34 appearances in J3. Page could do with expanding, but there isn't always substantial info to be added with pages such as these - of which there are thousands. Here is a little interview, though the source isn't one I'm familiar with, and here is another article about him. Though there isn't much to write about to expand the article, I will add a little detail now. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is considered a reliable secondary source. Interviews are considered primary. None confer notability based on Wikipedia's notability guideline. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and I know this may be a bit WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but there are literally thousands of football articles out there for players who meet WP:NFOOTY but not WP:GNG. I think the community is very strong in it's support for these kinds of pages. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't let me catch any of you commenting on other articles citing the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:N as a reason for deletion then. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ;-) --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - strong consensus that a strong NFOOTBALL pass is enough for the article to be kept; I see no reason for this one to go against consensus Spiderone 12:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only Internet sources which are available about this player are statistical databases. Jnovikov (what things?) 21:36, 16 January 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) (t · c) buidhe 05:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Air Society[edit]

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

There's some of verifiable information, but the best coverage I found is the two features in local publications listed in the article-- I don't see enough to merit an article here. Not a reason for deletion, but the article as it stood until I came upon it looked like this for over 12 years-- clearly COI editing that shouldn't be allowed to stick around. There's a vast amount of junk press releases that come up on ProQuest and most of my other databases, so there may be some coverage that I missed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Jax MN (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are enough mentions in Google books to establish GNG/NCORP. There are also many articles (example) published by the universities where the chapters operate. The Air Force itself, which is of course not independent of the subject, has published significant coverage on the Society. There is also coverage in many university guides that talk about fraternities (example). Coverage may not be ideal, but after 73 years of it, I think it is convincing enough to say that it exists and is minimally notable .Possibly (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that if after 73 years the best coverage that exists is universities covering their local chapters, Air Force coverage that's essentially glorified press releases, and university guides (which I'm not convinced are reliable/independent), that is even more indication of non-notability than if it had been formed more recently with comparable coverage. While I agree that it exists, I'm still not seeing the bar of WP:NORG being cleared. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University guides are independent coverage. Student newspaper coverage of what happens on a campus is not independent by nature, but at the same time it is not written by the Air force or by the Arnold Air Society. There is a lot of both student newspaper coverage and coverage by university guides, as well as the occasional local newspaper article Possibly (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but is there any coverage that passes WP:AUD besides the university guides and air force articles? I'm not seeing any. I also wouldn't consider inclusion in a 1200 page compendium to be indicative of notability unless you would argue that there are literally thousands of notable fraternities at American colleges just because they are included in a guide and covered by the colleges they are active at. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going mainly on what I have linked above, what is actually in the article, the incidence of the coverage in Google books, and finally the age of the organization making it highly likely that more coverage exists in local newspapers. Now, I cannot see the full results in Google as it is often in snippet form. I have no stake in this subject really, so If you wanted to propose a merge with Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps, aka the AFROTC, I would not be adverse to that. There is also the question of what to do with the related Silver Wings (service organization), which seems to be more of a promotional effort than this article. Possibly (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that makes sense-- I wouldn't be opposed to merging there, but let's wait and see where the AFD goes. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I restored some of the information recently blanked, and updated several references that had gone bad. I also added a link to the popular reference book on collegiate societies, Baird's Manual, which has a three-page section on the Society. Clearly, with over 150 active squadrons (~chapters), thousands of active participants and tens of thousands of alumni it is active, and notable. Some of the Fraternity and Sorority Project participants are engaging more actively on groups like this which we've adopted; any that are in Baird's are considered by us to of merit for the Project. I'll agree that activity in the 2015 to early 2020 period was lagging. Hopefully that is now being addressed. Meanwhile, I added an infobox among other improvements. I hope it will be up to snuff now. Jax MN (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has some fluff, but having worked with Air Force ROTC I can say AAS is alive and well. Many of the sources for AAS info, especially the historical stuff, aren't necessarily online. Silver Wings started as the female auxiliary of AAS, but there have been periodic attempts to revive it. I don't know that a merge with AFROTC is advisable...AAS's relationship with AFROTC is very similar to the relationship of the Air Force Association with the Air Force (and its relationship with the AFA is mentioned in the article itself). If a merge is contemplated, the AFA article would be a better candidate as AAS is in essence its student auxillary. Intothat darkness 15:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the existing sources cited in the article, there is newspaper coverage: for example, "Cadets remember missing soldiers", Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, Nov 10 1990. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 14 January 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. Daniel (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwali[edit]

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

Article fails WP:N and WP:V, since it is a little known place and a minor locality of Dehradun. (one of the 100 wards of the Dehradun Municipal Corporation). It can be covered under the Dehradun Municipal Corporation article page. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 16:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LeBron4 (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it can be verified that the place exists, (this one does, based on the refs listed in the article) and has a sizeable population, WP:GEOLAND applies and the article need not be deleted. Anyone is free to summarize content and add to the article of the larger geographical unit. Merging into that is not a reason to delete the individual units. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a legally recognised populated place, i.e., a ward - see WP:GEOLAND. Also, even though it is now part of a larger populated place, it was apparently formerly a panchayat in its own right, so WP:NOTTEMPORARY applies. Ingratis (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per arguments by Ingratis my findings and arguments are the same. Jeepday (talk) 18:27, 19 January 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. I have redirected the album to the band article. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pólo Norte[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page, which is an uncited article about an album of theirs:

Article on a band that doesn't cite any sources. A quick search for sources turns up nothing, and the articles on it in other languages are also poorly sourced. FalconK (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article on the band which needs a lot of work but this Allmusic staff written bio here states that they have had top ten hits which would be a pass of WP:NMUSIC but more details are needed of the charting so research is required. The album page can be redirected to the band page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all — Bare notability at best, a before search links to user generated sources, self published sources, and in websites LinkedIn like websites. Celestina007 (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the band; Redirect the nominated album to the band's article if it is kept. The band has coverage at AllMusic ([4]), and there is more info on the band at AllMusic's entry for their singer Miguel Gameiro ([5]). However I cannot find much else beyond the usual streaming and retail sites, which is odd because AllMusic says several times that they were very successful in Portugal. The band's article definitely needs to be cleaned up at any rate. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band and redirect the album. Their final album 15 Anos peaked at #6 according to portuguesecharts.com / Hung Medien. That website is listed at WP:GOODCHARTS. Coin (talk) 18:48, 21 January 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 British Rail Class 144. Feel free to merge from behind the redirect if you think the article content is better than the target article (seems to be some conjecture over whether this is the case or not). Daniel (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British rail class 144e[edit]

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

Content fork of Class 144. Plainly not needed, original article contains a section on the unit which more than adequately provides what information is needed. Not notable enough in its own right Nightfury 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. I redirected this to the section, but was reverted. A seperate page for this 1 refurbished unit is overkill~, this can easily be handled in one section of the main article. Fram (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the redirect added at the top of the article. The article should stand alone whilst its fate is being discussed. If it is to be redirected as a result of this discussion, the rediret should be done properly and be targeted to the section of the Class 144 article about the Class 144e. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedily as a hoax. I never heard of a class 144e; the article contains nothing in the way of sources. The TOPS classification system does not use suffix letters, variants are dealt with by use of class parts - a slash followed by one further figure, as in Class 150/0, Class 150/1, Class 150/2, etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redrose64: Not a hoax, see [6] for example of a source. However, it's more of a specification than a subclass. Rcsprinter123 (rhapsodise) 16:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect While certainly not notable enough for a fork article, it's a real thing, if essentially just a marketing name for a refurbished 144. Rcsprinter123 (shout) 16:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to British Rail Class 144, pointless content fork. SK2242 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Not a class but a single unit. No notability on its own. --PhiH (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to British Rail Class 144 where this can be sufficiently covered. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with British Rail Class 144 as it is just a spinoff of that and doesn't really have much substance as a separate article. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 22:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to British Rail Class 144#Class 144e. An entire article is indeed overkill for this, but it is notable in the context of the wider article and the existing section could be usefully expanded with some of the information here. Thryduulf (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a section at British Rail Class 144. Article is entirely unsourced and unsourced material should not be merged, it will lower the quality of the target article. Article fail GNG, but even if sources were available, simply meeting GNG does not mean there must be an article; N specifically allows for this: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." This content is better placed in the target article. // Timothy :: t | c | a 03:11, 18 January 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. Feel free to move the pages mentioned at editor discretion. Daniel (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yagoona (disambiguation)[edit]

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

"Yagoona" is not ambiguous and a disambiguation page is not required. The railway station is linked from the article about the place. Speedy delete G14 request was removed by @ScottDavis:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no ambiguity. Yagoona, New South Wales should also be moved to Yagoona as there is no ambiguity.--Grahame (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. The railway station serves the locality, there is no ambiguity between the two. Disambiguation shouldn't be used as a psuedo-link of articles related to the main topic. Support the proposed move of Yangoona, New South Wales to Yangoona as above as well. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Grahamec. Agree also with moving Yagoona, New South Wales to Yagoona. Deus et lex (talk) 01:53, 15 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most Ancient European Towns Network[edit]

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

There seems to be no assertion anywhere that this group ever met beyond its first proposed meeting, that it has ever made any decision or initiated or co-ordinated any activity of its members. It was an idea that apparently amounted to nothing. Kevin McE (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't found much from the actual organization, but it is frequently mentioned by travel sites and stuff of that sort. This isn't a vote. It's just an observation. LeBron4 (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:17, 6 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 13:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this article back in the day based on a reference to the same page on the German wiki, which has a lot more sources. No idea if they are reliable or not, and I don't find much in English that seems reliable. --AW (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the sources on that de.wiki page seem to be a municipal self promotion site for Worms, the German (former?) member of MAETN; reference to it as an example of "non-official forms of co-operation" in a 2000 document for a sub-group of the Council of Europe; an archived article from the promotional site of another (ex?) member city, Argos, mentioning the first meeting, but with no more to report than that one of the members hadn't turned up; and a google search documenting the absence of any original material from the group. I live in Colchester, and have strong family ties in Cork: in neither place have we seen any evidence of the working, or existence, of this body. This really seems to have been a lead balloon: it didn't fly. Kevin McE (talk) 09:21, 15 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Gupta (Captain)[edit]

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

This subject is an Indian army captain who drowned in a training accident, which received substantial media coverage. This is undoubtedly a tragedy, and I don't doubt the good faith of the editor who created the article, but per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, we shouldn't host an article about the individual, who was not a public figure. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that this incident does not merit a separate article. I have copied some content from this article to Kaylana_Lake#Incidents. --Walrus Ji (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, soldiers die in training accidents. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mztourist (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a obituary page relardless how tragic the incident was. RationalPuff (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, runs afoul of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 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) 14:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yugandhar (1993 film)[edit]

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

No sources at all. Though I found this, I don't think it's enough to save the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:42, 15 January 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) 14:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlize Rule[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL; clear consensus in more than 20 recent AfD discussions that appearances in the W-League do not make you notable by default; see Jodie Bain, Weidenbach and Tais-Borg to name but three.

No evidence of WP:GNG either; please note that the article contains a lot of opinions and statements that have failed verification, for example, "Rule was substituted into the match in the 88th minute and was able to get a few touches on the ball." and "Rule was considered a standout performer despite the 3–0 loss. Post match rule stated; "Wearing this jersey means so much to me."" During my WP:BEFORE search, the only source I found that gives Rule more than a name check was this but I have no idea if it is reliable or not. It doesn't appear to be a major publication and it's not clear where they get their info from. Even if we do say that it's a reliable source, you still need more than one source to pass GNG.

I would recommend delete or draftify on the grounds of being at least a few years WP:TOOSOON at best. Spiderone 09:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet any of our notability standards. 2603:7000:2143:8500:8C2A:84CA:D15B:3FEC (talk) 08:46, 17 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT-related slurs[edit]

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

This is a contentious WP:CONTENTFORK of List of LGBT slang terms. Per that article "This is a list of slang terms, primarily slurs, used to by others to describe LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people." (emphasis mine) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the creator of this, when I made it it had a clear goal, no idea what it looks like now since I abandoned working on it long ago since it became a total drama magnet.★Trekker (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can be, and is, adequately covered at List of LGBT slang terms, which has a more WP:NPOV title. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 14:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we already adequately cover it in a more broad article that also avoids just being a list. There is no reason for this list. We have gone list crazy, and we need to cut back.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion, and per YorkshireLad. We are not Urban dictionary. Most of the terms are already "Disputed or reclaimed usage" or slang terms. A redirect is not needed. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a database of random entries. NavjotSR (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. This does seem to be a case of WP:CONTENTFORK. Scorpions13256 (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems unnecessary to document every possible slur. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic seems too subjective, especially since these terms can all be included in List of LGBT slang terms. Dylanvt (talk) 21:46, 19 January 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 Galactic Republic. Sandstein 10:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Republic (Star Wars)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While the Old Republic seems to have gotten some borderline scholarly analysis (see my prior nom below), the New Republic seems to have nothing going for it - all I see are just pure plot summaries and mentions in passing. The usual problems abund, meaning the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Perhaps redirect to the Old Republic if that one survives the AfD? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Deletion is not appropriate as there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Discussing the best way to cover the various governments in the sprawling Star Wars franchise is best done in relevant projects and talk page, not at AfD, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Republic for much more of this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clearly notable. Major element of a very significant franchise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is even a Rangers of the New Republic TV show about to hit Disney Plus. That alone does not make it notable, but that does give you an idea of how far reaching the topic is. Dark knight 2149 18:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage" I disagree. Dark knight 2149 18:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per arguments above. Notable. Timmccloud (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. The keep votes above are quite sorry. "Major element of a very significant franchise" - so what? WP:KEEPPER. This is fancruft that fails notability, as the nominator explained. Growling from possible annoyed fans of that franchise won't change this, not unless they can present the needed sources. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even do a source check? Dark knight 2149 08:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I see no evidence you produced which makes your argument a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES-style fallacy. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not suggesting that there "must" be sources. I'm stating that there are sources. It could also be said that your comment is a WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE fallacy, since you have given no indication that you performed a source check before making this snide WP:BATTLEGROUND-level comment. That being said, I myself would not be opposed to merging all of the Star Wars Republic articles together, considering that I was literally the first to suggest it on another AfD. Dark knight 2149 09:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I am of the view that "New Republic" is essentially a content fork of Galactic Republic in terms of both its in-universe and out-of-universe information. For all intents and purposes, it is a continuation of the so-called Old Republic's model of governance and tenets so any real world analysis for Galactic Republic also applies to this topic, only discernable difference being relatively small in-universe details like a different seat of power etc. Haleth (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Haleth, I am fine with merge in principle, but precious little content is referenced here, which makes a lot of this WP:FANCRUFTy WP:OR/WP:PLOT. Anyway, I don't object to any merge, but I think the plot summary / fancruft in the target article needs pruning, not expanding. The 99% fancrut/plot summary to 1% reliable reception/analysis structure is hardly best practices. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you are coming across as being absolutionist, a viewpoint that is not isolated to this discussion based on our past interactions. Your subjective sweeping dismissal of sources based on their business model as opposed to the actual verifiability or quality of their content is not reflected by any community consensus I can see which mark the sources listed by Darkknight2149 as unreliable or deprecated for use. All of the plot details in the New Republic can be easily be cited with any of the pop culture websites as secondary sources which recap the movies' plot, and some of them have already been listed Darkknight2149 with none of them raising red flags as being unreliable. The real question here isn't whether the topic is noteworthy or if it is worth any coverage, but whether it warrants a standalone article page. As I said before, any scholarly or academic discussions about the Old Republic's model of governance also applies to the New Republic, and how much plot information regarding the New Republic editors should cover can be addressed in the merge target's talk page (WP:UNDUE discussions etc), if the ultimate consensus is to merge. Haleth (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Haleth, I have no idea what makes you say that "any scholarly or academic discussions about the Old Republic's model of governance also applies to the New Republic" given that said discussions don't mention the New Republic or if they do they see both republics as closely related. Merge is reasonable through the NR article has no reception/analysis, being pure plot summary, so it is of little use to the readers (as in, readers for such topis are much better served by resources like https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/New_Republic . FYI long ago I supported implementing redirects to wikia articles like that but the community did not approve of that idea. So these days we are serving readers lower quality fancruft that what wikia offers - the worst of both words, neither comprehensive/nicely formatted, nor encyclopedic. This is not a good place to be... We should provide readers with what those fan-sites don't - summary of scholarly analysis and such, which for them is trivia of little importance, and leave the extensive plot summary to them. And if a topic has received no scholarly or even journalistic analysis that goes beyond plot summary, well, it does not belong on Wikipedia per WP:ALLPLOT and like. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WP:PRESERVE the content here at a related Star Wars article like Galactic Republic. Both articles are shaky on sources for notability but might be better together. Archrogue (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as I am also not moved by someone saying keep as they "disagree" that there's no sourcing, while failing to present any, or the "it's clearly notable" argument made without demonstrating that it is. This is a fan cruft mess that needs WP:TNT to ever be its own page. I'm unconvinced that this can't be covered by Galactic Republic. It doesn't look to me like there's much to WP:PRESERVE so I would not be against a delete-and-redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also not moved by "it's just not notable" and "it's just fancruft" arguments. Or even "There's not much to merge or preserve" arguments which assume that notability applies to article content. (One of the comments I replied to above not only fails WP:AGF, but outright borders on WP:Overzealous deletion) Since I'm usually the one who has to lay this stuff out anyway, here are some of the sources covering the topic. There are existing print sources as well.

https://www.wired.com/story/star-wars-squadrons-changing-face-fascism/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/star-wars-last-jedi-fails-galactic-politics-101-1069536

https://screencrush.com/why-the-star-wars-new-republic-failed/

https://www.ign.com/articles/mandalorian-cara-dune-new-republic-spinoff-series-thrawn-first-order?amp=1

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/the-mandalorian-showed-the-new-republic-had-the-same-problems-as-the-empire-hinting-at-its-known-downfall.html/

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2015/12/21/10634568/star-wars-the-force-awakens-spoilers-republic-first-order

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/11/9/21557118/the-mandalorian-season-2-episode-2-passenger-star-wars-new-republic-x-wing

https://www.cbr.com/star-wars-rangers-of-the-new-republic-timeline/

https://screenrant.com/star-wars-force-awakens-mandalorian-new-republic-what-happened/

Reliable coverage and journalistic commentary of the topic clearly isn't as rare as what is being claimed here. "But there must be sources!" No, there are sources. Dark knight 2149 09:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darkknight2149, Those are very weak sources, mentions in passing and/or plot summaries. I've shown in the other article what 'good sources' are - academic articles comparing the concept of SW republic to real-world Roman or German republics, for example. What you linked above - mostly repetitive plot summaries from the new geeky bait clickers - is a far cry from the quality we are trying to achieve these days. The New Republic did not receive any reliable scholarly analysis, just plot summaries and fan speculations, a few of them published in the form of rambling baitclick-style blogs. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are absolutely not "passing mentions" and "plot summaries". The fact that you are claiming that they are "baitclick vlogs" honestly shows that you either didn't read them, aren't familiar with the sources themselves, or are just being dismissive. In fact, several of them (Wired, THR, Vox, Screen Crush, etc) are specifically critical analysis on the topic. The others aren't trivial coverage either.

"academic articles comparing the concept of SW republic to real-world Roman or German republics" That's not what "significant coverage" means. A fictional topic does not have to have a groundbreaking real world effect or thousands of academic papers comparing it to real world mythology to be considered notable. Per WP:SIGCOV:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The sources here fit the bill. Besides, the sources mentioned in parentheses above are the type of academic analysis you are talking about anyway. But no, fiction is a topic in and of itself covered on Wikipedia. Articles are not covered in-universe, but you seemed to suggest on a few occasions that any mentioning of plot (or even a critical critique or analysis of a fictional work's plot, or even a paragraph listing off the real world history of a fictional work) is somehow a violation of WP:NOTPLOT, and that's just not how that works. There have even been several nominations (such as this one, among a couple of others) where users pointed out to you that your standard for reliability is often really high and eclipses the community's.

But to clarify:

"Significantly coverage" =/= "How does this fictional topic hold a special significance to the real world? Did it cure cancer?"

"Significant coverage" = "Was this topic covered significantly, especially well enough to flesh out behind-the-scenes and Reception sections in fiction articles?".

Dark knight 2149 12:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: I agree that Wired has good reputation. But where is the critical analysis of the 'New Republic' concept in [7]? Can you provide quotations of such an analysis? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Piotr that this is pretty weak and is not making me believe that the necessary "significant coverage" exists. It's mere mentions, and a TV show that we know nothing about. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to build consensus. There aren't sources that really refer to this as a separate topic in direct detail, considering there are numerous Star Wars articles that already summarize this subject, including a questionable article about the older Galactic Republic. My read of the sources doesn't show enough coverage to establish separate notability, but even a generous reading would make this a WP:CONTENTFORK at best, retreading content that already exists in other Star Wars articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Galactic Republic per others._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:10, 21 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamna Pathak[edit]

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

No significant roles played in multiple notable productions to qualify for WP:NACTOR. Also fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON Fails WP:NACTOR RationalPuff (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable media. Only coverage in tabloids such as Times of India and Telechakkar, that are known to publish paid articles. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:21, 16 January 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 keep (nomination withdrawn) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Republic[edit]

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

A bit different beast this time. The current article is pure fancruft, but I found sources that might just might, help. But I think they are borderline, so a trial by fire seems in order (and if the consensus is to keep, I'll volunteer to do a rewrite). Right now this is a pure plot summary/fictional history (of Star Wars). There is no reception/analysis. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, blah, blah. Now, there is a tiny possibility this concept is notable (although as stated, the sources I see are pure plot summaries and nothing deeper), but in the current form this is 100% WP:FANCRUFT (a fictional entity that forms a background to a popular franchise, but does not appear to have received much attention outside frequent mentions in the plot).

Nonetheless, in my BEFORE I did find some sources for consideration that taken together give some hope: 1) "this academic article compares the Republic to the Weimar Germany, it goes beyond, plot, barely, but it is of dubious reliability. It was published in a new academic journal that appeared just last year ([8]), and this makes it as low-quality as things get in academia without being self-published or published in predatory outlets (but technically it is still reliable). You know this is a low quality outlet when it has no DOI... Anyway, this is the most in-depth treatment, but as noted, the outlet is barely reliable (but I guess barely still means reliable...). 2) This more reliable article does have a promising chapter titled 'The Fall and Redemption of Systems: The Story of the Galactic Republic' but having read it is very disappointing - the Republic is mentioned three times and the analysis is limited to few sentences: "In addition to telling a story about the fall and redemption of a person, the Star Wars saga tells a story about the fall and redemption of a system (the Galactic Republic)... The Star Wars literature describes the Galactic Republic as an organization where Senators sought to live out their most grandiose of political ambitions and to amass extreme wealth, power, and other excesses...". And that's it, I really struggle to find anything else quotable from this article, it mostly focuses on the story of Anakin and just draws a few parallels to the Republic here and there. 3) Another academic article with a promising title "Remembering and restoring the republic: Star Wars and Rome" draws several parallels but doesn't contain much else. So what do you think? The current article is a terrible piece of fancruft, but we could add a reception section saying that 'it has been compared to Ancient Rome and the Weimar Republic' and 'the story of GR rise, fall and redemption is similar to the story of Anakin Skywalker'. Would this be enough? And if so, how much of the mostly unreferenced fancruft plot summary should be pruned? Let's discuss. Can this be rescued? Another option would be to redirect it somewhere, where we could add the referenced few sentences (but redirect where? New Republic (Star Wars) is even worse...).

PS. Actually, since I already did most of the work here, I've added the reception section to this article, but I still think it is on the wrong side of borderline. Please improve further if you can, I'd be happy if this can be saved, I just don't think what I did is enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article needs a lot of work, and think historical references are a good place to start. I also suggest merging the New Republic article into Galactic Republic, while deleting everything unimportant. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator is not actually making a proper case for the article's deletion on the grounds that it unequivocally fails the GNG threshold, which is the only relevant guideline for a subject of this nature in an "Article of Deletion" discussion, and that consequently the article in its entirety needs to be removed from Wikipedia. Even he does not appear to have made up his mind on whether the subject topic meets or fails GNG since he has volunteered to rewrite the article's prose on the condition that a "keep" consensus is reached, which indicates that the article's content issues are not objectively insurmountable and can be fixed by bold edits or if it's tagged appropriately. If a topic is in fact not eminently notable, no amount of rewrites of the article's pose would remedy the underlying problem. The nominator's assertion that the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) essay is a "requirement" is incorrect, as it represents the opinions of the original author or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at best.

It appears the nominator has an editing pattern of using the AfD process as a cleanup exercise to remove poor quality content, which does not necessarily reflect Wikipedia policy on deletion justified or otherwise. Per WP:ATD, the nominator should either withdraw the nomination and either tag the page to request for cleanup from other editors on the relevant Wikiproject, discuss a merge proposal on the talk page with other editors who are interested in collaborating to fix the article's issues, or boldly rewrite the entirety of the prose himself since he implied that he already has an idea on how it should be written. In the alternative, if he is unwilling and unable to do so, the closing editor should close this discussion as a Speedy Keep on a procedural rationale, as I believe this is a misuse of the Articles for Deletion procedure and it is not the appropriate avenue to discuss the improvement of an article's content quality. Haleth (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP, as well explained by Haleth above. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clearly notable. Central element of a very significant franchise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at the most, Merge the "Republic" topics together. A lot of the nom is just criticising the current revision of the article, which isn't relevant per WP:ARTN. The rest of this is just saying "I wasn't sure if the available coverage was adequate, so I nominated it for deletion". From the sound of it, there are several other places this should have gone before it made its way here. WP:RSN and Talk:Galactic Republic are the two biggest examples. Deletion isn't a default solution and AfD isn't an all-in-one "I have a problem or concern with this article" page. WP:HANDLE is a Wikipedia policy, and so is WP:ATD. The nomination overestimates the scope of AfD and doesn't do enough to consider alternatives. Dark knight 2149 19:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. AfD is not the appropriate place to ask for help in developing an article. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The nominator admits the article may be notable and even asks other users to look for sources. It's clear editing can improve the page as the nominator already did it; I think users should be given more time to find other sources without the threat of deletion. I have no issue with this being renominated at a later date if not improved, but I don't think it should be nominated now. Rhino131 (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Deletion isn’t cleanup. Dronebogus (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I praise the nominator for starting the reception section. It would be good if others joined them in improving this rather than rant about AfD not being the place for improving articles. I believe it very much should be. But anyway, keep this (possibly merge with the New Republic?) - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I still think this is borderline, but clearly no-one else does, and since I went to the trouble of partially rescuing it, eh, I lost much motivation. Also for rescuing it further, given the unfriendly attitude towards either rescuing or deleting this, as displayed by some above. It sounds like some would refer AfD to be used for nothing (Deletion=bad, rescuing=bad). Sigh again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't that deletion is bad, it's just that this doesn't fit the scope of AfD. AfD isn't for general "I have a problem or concern with this article that needs to be addressed" posts. It's the last resort for when the nominator is sure that something fails a deletion criteria and there is no alternative to deletion. If you believe that an article needs to be rewritten, aren't fully sure about the coverage, or have a question about if it can be improved, there are dedicated areas for that sort of thing. For example, WP:RSN is the noticeboard for questions and disputes about the adequecy and reliability of sources. Dark knight 2149 08:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. Articles for Deletion is still not Articles for Discussion as it does not reflect Wikipedia policy and currently lacks a community-wide consensus for that to change. The nominator and their supporter(s) being passive aggressive about it and blaming it on supposed fandom as opposed to their own lack of understanding of the appropriate process to improve articles does not help matters. Haleth (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article is in really rough shape. AFD isn't cleanup. It is a central part of a notable franchise. But articles like this are better saved by sources than !voting and I haven't found sources outside of plot summaries of Star Wars. I am glad this article is getting a chance to improve but I have mixed feelings that it's because of bare votes with no sources. Agree with people saying this has a better chance of fitting with Wikipedia in the long run if it's merged with Galactic Republic. Archrogue (talk) 20:38, 17 January 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) 14:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cummings (writer)[edit]

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

This article is seemingly a COI biography, and appears to be name-dropping people and organizations to appear notable, but I don't think he is notable. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to showing this person is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - while there was a Times review of his book, that does not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 15 January 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. Arguments to draftify do not give a convincing explanation how the article could be improved given the lack of quality sources. — The Earwig ^talk 01:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing video game franchises[edit]

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

Unlike List of best-selling video game franchises where there is a combination of minimal WP:SYNTH (within the bounds of CALC) based on reliable sourcing for the number of units within each franchise sold, this list is using far less reliable sourcing and far more SYNTH that is comfortable for such a compilation. There are some "firm" numbers from good RSes, such as for "Dungeon Fighter Online" but eliminating the franchises with poorly sourced numbers is not an option in terms of this list - eg the Super Mario entry is one of those that is suspect, and it clearly would be listed on here but we simply dn't have good sourcing for the total dollar amount the series has sold. There is no practical way for this list to exist based on sourcing. Masem (t) 06:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Masem (t) 06:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, this is a topic which is almost certainly notable, and sourcing can probably be dug up, but the currently the article is in a horrid state, with most of the numbers being completely made up. The solution is pretty simple, just draftify the article until it no longer is comprised almost entirely of false information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that I very much doubt we will be able to ever verify these details. The VG market is very tight on financials compared to the film industry, as a reference, and while units sold get reported frequently, the financial return on that is rarely reported. Until such a point where the VG market matures to where reporting these financials is more the norm than the exception, this type of article is basically impractical to fill out reliably to WP's standards. --Masem (t) 14:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (or delete as a second option - just keep it from the main article space until it's been reworked). The topic is definitely notable, but the article in its current state spreads potential misinformation.--Alexandra^IDV 08:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: clearly needs work, but it's an important subject to cover. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify subject is very important but needs work. Also requesting comment from Maestro2016.Timur9008 (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Can't leave the article as is. killer bee  13:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going to be the odd editor out, and if it "dings" my AFD stats so be it. This is a two year old article, I cannot see the purpose in Draftifying it. What is the goal? To provide "more time" to clean it up? Then just vote "keep, but needs cleanup". While AFD is not cleanup, the basic premise of the nomination is that the sourcing to create and maintain this list in a remotely complete form doesn't exist. And if that sourcing, to meet WP:V, does not exist, then it suggests appropriate sourcing to truly demonstrate WP:GNG and WP:LISTN similarly is missing. Even stepping back and going, "The data is bad, but clearly "highest grossing" is something sources talk about!" (to meet LISTN), I'd still vote Delete, and call it IAR and/or TNT on the grounds that we cannot adequately source and complete the list, with gaping holes for massive industry-critical franchises that clearly belong but the data is not published. It's had 2 years. Another 6 months in draft until it gets G13'd, or until random passing by editors move it back to article space, isn't going to solve anything. For that matter, what would be the criteria for it to be promoted back to article space? -- ferret (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ferret. Draftification is appropriate for new articles. This article is not new. --Izno (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per argument of Masem. The video game industry is too secretive for such a list to be complete._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to fundamental issues with verifiability that cannot be resolved, as there are no reliable sources that would resolve them. Also fails WP:OR because some (many?) of the numbers are derived from calculations done by editors, based on already doubtful sources. Clean-up is not an option because removing the problematic numbers would make the holes in this list all the more obvious, and those holes cannot be fixed given that sources do not WP:NEXIST. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The article needs improvement, not deletion. Tessaracter (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you perhaps address the nom and concerns that improvement is, simply, impossible? -- ferret (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This entire concept is simply unsalvageable because there is no comprehensive and transparent global revenue tracking in the video game industry like there is in other entertainment media like motion pictures. Every so often, a company will issue a press release saying so and so franchise has earned X number of dollars, but that is all you ever get, and even then there is no guarantee they are not juking the stats for their own gain by using strange definitions of what constitutes "revenue" or a "franchise." Even if we take those rare reliable sources at face value, however, we will be left with a list that is so full of omissions it cannot come close to satisfying the claim of the article title that it represents the highest grossing franchises. If someone really, really wants to put this in their own sandbox and play with it, I will not stop them, but there is no way to ever bring this article up to snuff for the mainspace. Indrian (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. For reasons mentioned above. The article certainly needs cleanup though. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- One possible solution to some of the issues raised is to limit the scope of the article to modern and/or online games. There is an abundance of gross revenue data available for modern and/or online games, but not as much for older and/or retail games. Another possible solution would be to rename the article to "List of video game franchises by gross revenue". That way, there is no claim that these are the "highest-grossing" franchises, but only the game franchises for which gross revenue data is known. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Maestro2016 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - So... List of highest-grossing video game franchises released after 2000 or online....? Renaming the list to be "by gross revenue" still contains a subtle context that entries at the top are the "highest grossing". And even then, a quick spot check just now found 3 cases of unreliable sourcing, incorrect OR figures, etc. -- ferret (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or alternatively, List of high-grossing video game franchises or List of billion-dollar video game franchises. We could also not have it in numerical order, but instead list it in alphabetic or release order. Maestro2016 (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - A list of franchises that are confirmed via a single source to be >$1b may be fair but I'd like to see that that is a notable distinction in the sources. I know in the mobile games area this is a metric, but not for premium/retail games, routinely. --Masem (t) 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - And yet would also remain woefully incomplete, as many of the most important highest grossing franchises you'd expect to see on "highest-grossing" would also be expected on "grossing >$1b", and similarly be unsourcable. -- ferret (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's why I was suggesting to limit the scope to online (or digital/arcade) games, where gross revenue is the standard metric, in contrast to console/PC retail games where unit sales is the standard metric. Maestro2016 (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Indrian's excellent take. It's simply not possible to write an accurate article based on this concept. The video game industry uses number of copies sold to measure success, not financials. Most publishers don't even report these figures. The article is doomed to be incomplete and misleading, draftifying does not solve anything. List of best-selling video game franchises is based on copies sold, and does a better job at addressing this topic. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 04:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is OR SYNTH and I do not see how an article about this could be made without OR SYNTH per Indrian above. // Timothy :: t | c | a 05:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TarkusAB's comments. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarkus and Indrian. It's simply impossible to have a 100% accurate article for something like this. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 22:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TNT is a policy that applies here. Starting from scratch would be better than keeping an article that is severely flawed. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me stress that there is a funamental issue with the video game industry around the reporting of individual titles' revenue (outside of the mobile side) that makes any attempt at a list like this flawed from a sourcing perspective. If there is a significant change in the industry to be more open - like the film industry - then maybe we can consider this, but this is almost a case of delete, salt and protect the salt to prevent recreation until such a time we can assure that we'll have accurate sourcing from the industry. --Masem (t) 22:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If accurate sourcing does become available one day, how would one hypothetically propose that the subject topic be "unsalted" to recreate the topic as per your suggestion? Haleth (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Likely by seeking adminstrative help alongside proof that the sourcing is now there to support it. --Masem (t) 14:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The article's accuracy issues is insurmountable per the arguments made by other editors in this discussion. Haleth (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an original research magnet. Per Masem and Indrian, the sourcing issues are insurmountable and no one has named a forthcoming reason or cache of sources that would make draftification productive. czar 05:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is almost impossible to be without WP:SYNTH. MurasakiLizard (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ferret, Indrian, and TarkusAB. Also, while some lists may never satisfy standards of completeness, one that then perpetuates something may be more or less successful by comparison than it actually is because numbers don't exist for other items on the list is dangerously WP:UNDUE and risks WP:NPOV issues. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Indrian. Video game industry does not have sufficient reliable sourcing for this except for some (unverifiable) claims by publishers/developers. The few that we have is not enough to make an article that doesn't have major omissions and isn't built around SYNTHy conclusions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This article certainly can be certainly save, if we worked at it and improve it I can see it working Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page can't exist without either a massive amount of WP:SYNTH or a massive amount of omissions. Additionally, since video game companies do not usually report revenue openly, most available sources for revenue figures are dubious. Phediuk (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have said, there are simply too many issues with trying to reliably source this information given the current state of the industry. That may change some day, but we're clearly not there yet. And, even if/when that day comes, the current page is not going to be helpful enough to warrant keeping it around given the amount of original research and speculation that seems be happening with it right now. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarkus and Indrian. Article has deep issues with WP:V and WP:OR since reliable sources do not exist. Jontesta (talk) 19:55, 20 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aroshanti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional, and I don't see any independent coverage. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 13 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mi-Case[edit]

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

This is a relatively insignificant software. As far as I can see, its only coverage in media is one review, and a press release from Maryland government. "Used by 30 customers in the UK" is a sign that it shouldn't have a WP article. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 13 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yashoda Naidoo[edit]

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

This is basically an advertisement for her restaurant. I searched for her name and all the sources seemed to be interviews. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "heal people with her healthy food" or something such, overtly promotional for an unimportant restaurant. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only three refs (none in-depth coverage) and the article is a clear attempt to use WP as a soapbox. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 00:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this obvious spam. FalconK (talk) 06:05, 19 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo Vieira (musician)[edit]

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

I do not believe he is notable. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:14, 13 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hyatt[edit]

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

It seems clear that the subject, an associate professor, doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC, and I can't find any substantial information about him sufficient to meet WP:GNG - only an occasional trivial mention in the context of one of his programs. Useful information (if any) may be merged into Crafty and/or Cray Blitz. But a separate article about him is unwarranted in light of the dearth of reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail NPROF and NBIO. Gscholar has many citations for RE Hyatt but that doesn't seem to be the same person (RE Hyatt is a medical researcher and the subject is a computer scientist). Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The associate professor rank is totally irrelevant, but his citation record [9] is probably not enough for WP:PROF. However, as an author of both Crafty and Cray Blitz and as a very well known chess programmer, I believe he passes WP:CREATIVE #1 ("regarded as an important figure"), #2 ("known for originating a significant new concept", in this case rotated bitboards, a major feature of both programs), #3 ("created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", namely Crafty and Cray Blitz; note that Cray Blitz is the subject of multiple publications by people who were independent from its creation including "Cray Blitz and Hitech: Parallel Search and Parallel Evaluation", Newborn, 1997, and "Cray Blitz-A Computer Chess Playing Program", Marsland, 1985, as well as many news pieces about its individual performances such as in the NYT; Crafty is not as heavily covered by independent sources but there exists at least "Performance Characterization of Parallel Game-tree Search Application Crafty" by Ying et al, and "Tuning evaluation functions by maximizing concordance", Gomboc, 2005), and plausibly #4 ("been a substantial part of a significant exhibition", namely the participation of these programs in major computer chess competitions). If he had only one notable program a merge might have made sense per WP:BIO1E but not when there are two. This seems part and parcel with the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Computer Games Association (successful) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICGA Journal (unsuccessful) as an effort to erase from Wikipedia the history of computer chess, a significant subject with a significant history. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:CREATIVE argument. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also as per WP:CREATIVE. Added a Google Scholar Profile to his page if that helps. More links will need to be added. Will have a look.HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Update: Added more links/books.HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the WP:CREATIVE case is good. A couple biographical claims need better referencing, but that's a matter for ordinary editing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with others above that WP:CREATIVE seems reasonable. It doesn't hurt that his programs won the World Computer Chess Championships in the 1980s. I helped tidy the article a bit and updated the Wikidata entry. TJMSmith (talk) 02:38, 16 January 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 with no prejudice whatsoever to a recreated article using appropriate sourcing that demonstrates notability to the standards required by policy etc. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kobra Ali[edit]

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

No significant coverage found to satisfy WP:GNG. Very little claim to notability based on being the first person from a particular minority to join the Australian Army. Dumelow (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks to me like there is plenty online to meet GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. The first X ethnicity/nationality-Australian to join the Australian Army is not notable. Mztourist (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually on further review, she is the first women of an ethnic ancestry, limited to a particular country (there are also Pakistani Hazara) to join the Australian military. By the very wonding it suggests previously there were Pakistani-Hazara women in the Austrlian military and there were Afghan-Hazara men in the Australian military. If this extremely narrow "first" is enough to justify an article, what is next "first women of Swiss-French descent to join the United States military" and a thousand more?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first of x ethnicity to join y military is not enough unless we have significant and sustained levels of coverage, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hazara Australians. Not enough third-party coverage for its own article but a sentence or two in that article and a redirect is a valid alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 03:23, 14 January 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 & will salt. Daniel (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canine Performance Events[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can only find a single reliable secondary source that meets WP:SIGCOV, [10], otherwise there are a few fleeting mentions in some news stories, although most are not referring to this organisation but canine performance events uncapitalised. The one secondary source cited in the article, [11], is short of WP:SIGCOV. Cavalryman (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of independent sources and no indication of notability. SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And probably should salt it, too, given that this is the third deletion nomination and it has been created again each time. SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the editor who recreated it last was active on Wikipedia for only 2 days before blanking their page and leaving. William Harris (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. William Harris (talk) 04:29, 17 January 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 Autopackage. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.package[edit]

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

Of the two entries, the DBPF one has been deleted, and the .package file extension in DBPF doesn't seem to be discussed anywhere that I could find using the article search function. It is mentioned once in the autopackage article. Not really serving much of a useful purpose in disambiguation. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Autopackage (I would've done this myself, honestly). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Autopackage – gpvos (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Week Delete or Redirect : Onursides (talk) 19:12, 19 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajdeep Choudhury[edit]

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

Non notable actor with only a few minor roles and largely cited to primary sources. His next film titled Screem where he played a lead role is yet to come out, so WP:TOOSOON to have a standalone article. Also fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly too soon. RationalPuff (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete below the notability threshold for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his only role in a notable film, which even that can be questioned, is a minor role. No significant coverage, if any, therefore failing WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. Coreykai (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is a an Indian Actor. upcoming lead actor, check his IMDb. He has been featured in Zee Music as lead actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actors Data (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 January 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 10:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bowes-Lyon, 19th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously conclusively deleted in a previous AfD in September last year. He has now been convicted of sexual assault. Even with this coverage, it still fails WP:BLP1E because the only notable coverage is about the sexual assault conviction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the participants to the previous AfD: @PatGallacher: @Buidhe: @Whiteguru: @Ritchie333: @Dunarc: @Peterkingiron: Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: who was the original nominator. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Keep arguably the new coverage puts him over the line of GNG. There is also coverage about COVID restrictions issue so I don't see this as BLP1E. The history of the previous article is now at a different place. If this closes as keep, a history merge may be in order. (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Edit: He's now being covered in multiple foreign countries[12][13][14] which puts it over the line for me. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even still, there's relatively little meaningful to be said about him, other than the covid breach and the conviction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A criminal conviction is normally an excellent way to establish wikinotability but WP may retain a policy (undocumented?) of droit du seigneur. In Britain COVID restrictions do not apply to VIPs and certainly not to the aristocracy. Thincat (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not voting Keep or Delete here, but if droit du seigneur is actually secretly believed in by anyone here, it is wrong and should be admitted and abolished. He should not be considered any less notable because of any institutional bias in favour of his class which might lead to his being treated more leniently for either offence. As I say, I have no dog in this fight, but Wikipedia should not be replicating class bias, and it could be argued that deleting this article might be seen by some as a means of glossing up bad practice by the aristocracy. I make no comment on whether I believe that myself. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  You might want to send your irony detector in for recalibration. E Eng 13:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles about the court case will come up any time someone searches his name regardless, so deleting this Wikipedia article won't cause his crimes to disappear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG as has significant coverage (considerable press coverage for the COVID-19 violation and the conviction in addition to owning Glamis Castle) in reliable sources (broadsheet newspapers + books) that are independent of the subject (he obviously doesn't own the newspapers). Greenshed (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am very undecided about this one. Given the news story I did think the page may reappear and can see that it arguably increases his notability (though notoriety might be a better word, and I am not sure I like the idea of notoriety helping justify someone having an article). I suppose it could be argued it shows his position as an Earl maybe makes him more notable in the public eye than I and others felt in the previous deletion discussion. On the other hand I really wonder if this would have got much more than local media coverage if it was not for the fact he is distantly related to the Queen (and it is more distant than cousin as some more sloppy reports I have seen today state) and Glamis Castle has royal associations (being the childhood home of the late Queen Mother and birthplace of Princess Margaret). To my mind that raises the issue of the well-established Wikipedia principle that people are not considered notable because of their relations. This is a difficult one to call. Dunarc (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep. While I still have concerns that a lot of his notability is related to his relationship to the Royal Family, the international coverage would seem to be enough to meet current WP:GNG. Dunarc (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Uh, we are not tasked with making morality calls here - as much as some would like to. This brings to mind the notability guidelines for crime and criminals, we have to be neutral, just as the article has to meet WP:NPOV. Which it does. It also meets notability due the association with Glamis Castle. WP:GNG - what the Butler did. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - am Earl, and cousin of the British royals, and likely to be in the news as he has been recently. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hereditary peerages that were attained after the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999 are not automatically considered notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED, as they hold no political power. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess that I have not read the House of Lords Act 1999 but I very much doubt that it descends to the particulars of biographical notability on the Wikipedia. The holding of political power is only one aspect amongst a vast array of things that might make a person notable on the Wikipedia. As regards WP:NOTINHERITED, I don't think anyone here is arguing that descent from an aristocrat, per se, makes one notable. It's the holding of the title of nobility which is not always the same thing. If sufficient WP:RS cover the person in sufficient detail then they're notable and being a peer attracts mentions in RS. It would be good to include references from Burke's Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage or Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage if someone has access and holding a title of nobility will tend to get one a mention in those works. Greenshed (talk) 10:44, 16 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. A. Krishnamurthy[edit]

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

The article entirely sourced from a run-of-the-mill professional career and not notable enough to have an independent article. Do not pass WP:Basic, WP:GNG, WP:PROF#C6 RationalPuff (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has minimal coverage aside from staff lists. Fails WP:GNG Sungodtemple (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 03:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable academic. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 13 January 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) 14:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Priya[edit]

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

First of all the article is poorly sourced. The issues pointed out havent been sorted out yet. Searched for this person in google search, books and in web archives. Couldnt find anything except some facebook profiles. Correct me if Im wrong as this is my first nomination for AFD Kashmorwiki (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kashmorwiki (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find anything notable in a WP:BEFORE search. Pulisi (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This source is about someone completly different incase people see that in Google searches, as well as this. Pulisi (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 17:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 03:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neutral sources about the guru not found. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:37, 17 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Softball Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Could not find any references to back up claims in this article, does not meet WP:GNG. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Confusingly it doesn't seem to be a Hall of Fame at all, just a low level of softball leagues. Nigej (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find no coverage in reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assuming it's all true, which can't be verified, this is as common as it gets: "19,300 champions, and directed more than 2,015,000 participants." It seems to be more of a league than a "hall of fame". Bearian (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - I couldn't find any reliable sources myself. This seems more like a typical baseball league rather than a notable hall of fame. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 03:00, 18 January 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. Merge proposal can be considered separately via talk page etc. Daniel (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mountain Dew flavors and varieties[edit]

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

List feels very "cruft" / indiscriminate collection of information, and I feel notable information (ie. notable flavor variations) could best be represented in the main Mountain Dew article. AxoIotI (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. AxoIotI (talk) 03:30, 13 January 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 January 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination feels like WP:CRUFTCRUFT and doesn't seem to be proposing deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main Mountain Dew article (and trim the fat). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC) After further review of the article and more background information (i.e. that it was split from the main article originally), changing !vote to keep. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mountain Dew article. There is no reason for a seperate list article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the above !vote was saved just 1 minute after the user's !vote in another AFD discussion. Sam Sailor 16:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - John is very active in AfD, so I wouldn't take that as anything suspicious myself -- I'd assume it's just a matter of having several tabs open at once. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonably well-sourced list article. The list was split off from Mountain Dew, and I don't think it serves a good purpose for the ready to try and merge part or the whole back into the main article. Sam Sailor 16:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trim & Merge to the main Mountain Dew article. Only the varieties that are actually notable in some way (i.e., actually are sourced to reliable, secondary sources) should actually be included here. Many, many of these variants have no sources describing them, and many of them are simply not notable enough to include (for example, variants that were test-marketed but never fully released, variants that were non-winning entrants in contests, etc.). When the vast amounts of non-sourced, non-notable information is trimmed out, the remainder describing the notable variants would be best integrated to the main article on the product, rather than being split into a separate list. Rorshacma (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wouldn't fit in the main article, so a split off article is justified. Dream Focus 19:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but get rid of the unsourced content, and give priority to the more notable flavours. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very informative for all the fans and Mountain Dew history buffs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bufftbone (talk • contribs) 15:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST. There is coverage of "Mountain Dew flavors" as a set, and there are some decent references for individual items. "Feels very cruft" is not a good deletion rationale. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:56, 14 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaoswave[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, could not find any sources to meet WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:43, 13 January 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 USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG-49). Consensus is that this topic is not independently notable, but some of its coverage may be useful to the target article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. Bradley[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. One award of the Navy Cross doesn't make him notable. Most of the details are about the USS Princeton (CVL-23) and not about his role in its sinking. Adequate details of his role as namesake of USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG-49) are on that page Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG-49) as the ship's namesake. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bradley is notable as evidenced by the fact that the United States Navy named a $122 million warship after him. (that's the mid 1970s estimated per unit cost, or $679 million in today's dollars.) Relatively few people have received that honor and I would assert that if a person is notable enough to have a 4,000 ton ship named for them (this is not a 20 foot boat) they are notable enough for a wikipedia article. As to un-forking this back into the ship's article, the material as it stands right now is lengthy enough to support its own article. I don't think it's adequate to give him a single sentence in the ship's article with no separate article, and I wouldn't want to insert a huge amount about the namesake into the ship's article, which is lacking its own 30 year history right now. As for the Navy Cross, that is also a rare honor and many of the recipients, certainly the ones with ships or bases named after them, are notable enough to have an article. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted a note to WP:SHIPS, as I requested on my talk page since I am largely wiki-retired. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bradley is notable as evidenced by the fact that the United States Navy named a $122 million warship after him. WP:NOTINHERITED. "Notable enough for a ship to be named for them" is not what notability means in Wikipedia. As for the Navy Cross, it's considered to confer notability if it has been awarded to someone multiple times (WP:SOLDIER #2). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG-49). I do not think that the half-sentence in the ship article is adequate; this should be summarised in paragraph to inform better why the ship has this name it does (together with the photograph). His notability is well sufficient for such content, but I agree not for an individual article per WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Davidships (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into USS Princeton (CVL-23) and USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG-49) as required such that there is enough info in the former to know why he was awarded the Navy Cross and in the latter why a ship was named after him nearly 40 years later. Actions are notable but not, at this point going on the sources available, the man himself for separate article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:44, 16 January 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. Little support for outright deletion. A merge could still be discussed elsewhere. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Kale[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when our only source is a website connected with the band he was in, we have no real evidence for individual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination and previous vote are based on the current state of the article, with little evidence of a WP:BEFORE search or acknowledgement of WP:NEXIST. Jim Kale is an original member of the notable The Guess Who and is often the subject of media coverage, because he trademarked the band's name via crooked shenanigans and is still using it on the oldies circuit more than 40 years after the classic lineup split, causing great resentment. See e.g. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Granted, today Kale is known for little else than being an enemy of the band's classic members and longtime fans, but he is also covered in many books that cover the band's classic years and their place in 60s/70s rock, easily found in a Google Books search. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of them are passing mentions and do not contribute to notability. The winnipegfreepress.com and brandonsun.com are interesting, but could easily be rolled up into the band's article. It was when I did BEFORE and found things like this at AllMusic, and britannica.com that made it clear that the subject did not have a place in music history outside of the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Guess Who. Trillfendi (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BEFORE. He co-wrote the number one Platinum hit, American Woman, which was recorded by his band and Lenny Kravitz, amongst many others. He's in the Canadian Music Hall of Fame. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I did do BEFORE and found mentions of him only when discussing the band or larger works. That means everything that can be written about him can be added to the band article. And, all of the MUSICBIO content would be for the band. As a song writer, he does not qualify for MUSICBIO, but possibly WP:COMPOSER. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added that Kale was in another notable group Scrubbaloe Caine for four years, including when they had a Juno nomination. So rerouting to the Guess Who page would be inappropriate. Since 1978, he is the owner of the Guess Who trademark and essentially toured until 2018 using the name. That in addition to the other notable elements, co-writing American Woman, in the Canadian Music Hall of Fame etc. This is just an unnecessary and unjustified attack on a member of the classic lineup of an important band. Trackinfo (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet being in two notable bands did not garner the subject significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Still only passing mentions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:COMPOSER and WP:MUSICBIO co-writing American Woman, in the Canadian Music Hall of Fame... --Kemalcan (talk) 09:47, 21 January 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) 05:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Fassi family[edit]

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

This article is about a family of sheiks that seem to be prominent in Sri Lanka, as it stands, the article fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY, and I don't think current sourcing justifies an article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will quote the analysis of the sources I did in response to DougWeller back in May on the RSN "Someone's CV is by definition a self-published source, so not reliable. The two other sources apparently originate from Daily News (Sri Lanka). One of them discusses a visit by "His Holiness Al Seyyid Ash Sheik Ajwad Abdullah Al Fassi Al Macci Ash Shazulee" to Sri Lanka in 2004 apparently to discuss Sufism and tolerant Islam, and provides little overall detail on the family. The other piece in the paper is apparently by Dr. Hatoon Ajwad al-Fassi, (who the aformentioned CV belongs to) a Historian at King Saud University Riyadh discussing the family and history of Shazuliya Tariqah, apparently an obscure (at least in english language sources) group of the Shadhili order of Sufism, the piece cites no sources so I would treat it with caution, even though it appears to be by a well established academic." Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a family tree, populated by a large number of non-notable members - concur fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Very few of the named persons are notable. If we're going to delete articles about actual royalty, we might as well delete articles about the families of local potentates as well. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 15 January 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. Canley (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick McArdle[edit]

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

I have found no significant third party coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. There are a couple of mentions of his departure from Fox Sports, and a couple of pieces written by McArdle himself, but nothing else so far as I could tell. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 03:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 03:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - McArdle is a well-known sports anchor in Australia. There would definitely be sources out there on him. Third party coverage is not just a Google search. Deus et lex (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you assume that all I made was a simple Google search? I spent a non-trivial amount of time searching multiple online sources before posting this. I admit I may not have access to all the relevant offline sources, but given the nature of the article I would expect there to be at least one or two online sources indicating notability. It seems to me that your comment seems to fall under WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 15:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - What did you do, then, besides a Google search? McArdle is a well known sports anchor that has been around for a while. This is not some random person, it is an article that should be kept. Deus et lex (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have so far searched Trove ([20] [21]), Guardian Australia (using the search bar at the top, which doesn't provide anything I can link to), News.com.au ([22]), and the Australian Fox Sports site [23]). That last one is the one listed as an external link on the article's page. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 14:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Add 7news.com.au ([24]) to that list as well. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 15:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        What about this (an article about his sacking from Fox Sports earlier this year) and this (an article about his new podcast venture), this (interview with him). The first two are substantially about McArdle and are sources independent to him. Deus et lex (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep McArlde is a notable commentator and easily meets WP:GNG. I have expanded the article and added suitable references. This should be sufficient for now and I'll plan to expand. Cabrils (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third and last round
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per prior comments -- McArdle passes GNG with flying colours, and edits since the time of AfD have demonstrated it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: GNG is met. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:42, 13 January 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Sustainable Democracy Project[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability, could not find any sources to meet WP:ORG. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:57, 13 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deeds of Derangement[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:NALBUM. JTtheOG (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The same band, Prostitute Disfigurement, has another album article with similar problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left in Grisly Fashion, and I suggest that the band's notability could be discussed in AfD form as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can find no pro reviews or other media coverage, and the album is only present in the usual directories and streaming/retail sites. Do not redirect to the band because they have notability issues too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy notability requirements listed at WP:NMUSIC. I also do not propose to redirect as the potential target article (Prostitute Disfigurement) is also doubtful in terms of notability. HĐ (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the only reliable source I found, and one good source is not enough. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:17, 18 January 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) 14:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sun City Palm Desert, California[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was first nominated in 2006, when geography standards were still being worked out. In fact it is exactly as described: a large gated senior's community. We have not as a rule considered these to be notable simply for existing, and I'm not seeing any other claim to notability beyond that implied by size. I don't see it passing WP:GNG, and the source of the text— largely the community website— reflects that. What I find is typical real estate stuff pertaining to any development. Mangoe (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. In my mind, it's not a notable place, because it's merely a suburban subdivision with golf courses attached. It's unclear that even all of the houses are occupied year-round. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Been there, it is a very nice gated community. I could not find sources to meet GNG. // Timothy :: t | c | a 12:59, 19 January 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) 14:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Superstick[edit]

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

No evidence in article that this passes WP:NPRODUCT, can't find any other sources with a google search Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage, just one of hundreds of early console era third party accessories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferret (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom and the result of the previous three (four?) AfDs on similar one-off items. IceWelder [✉] 07:01, 18 January 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. A clear consensus here for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abba Bichi[edit]

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

non notable youth footy player, fails WP:NFOOTY and fails all other notability criteria afaict. these sources are dubious, poorly written pieces as well. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Eyebeller 00:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do they meet nfooty and what coverage is there, Eyebeller? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting WP:NFOOTY is not required as that is primary additional criteria that indicate notability. Coverage is in the provided sources. Eyebeller 00:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read them? I have serious doubts about your judgement in this case, if you are claiming that those poorly written pieces are somehow in depth, reliable coverage. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did read them. Did you? Eyebeller 00:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can go back and forth on this but which of these is indepth and reliable? Is it the guardian.ng puff piece with no byline? Or the stats listing? Or the puff pieces sourced to blatant non-rs that didn't even bother to spell check? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being well-written is not a requirement for WP:GNG. Eyebeller 00:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lesson. No one said it was. But reliable sources don't publish PR gibberish. Being published somewhere != reliable source. So which of these sources are reliable and independent? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are better here than they are at Draft:Michael C. Grayson which has duplicate sources and which you marked as reviewed. Eyebeller 00:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Eyebeller, I don't see where Praxidicae reviewed that draft. The only thing I see in the history is a ((UDP)) tag. Blablubbs\|talk 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] My bad, didn't see that it was a draft. Eyebeller 01:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Multiple of them are and I don't see why this should be deleted when other articles with worse sources were marked as reviewed by yourself. Eyebeller 00:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Not to be rude, but you really should substantiate that statement, and probably at a more appropriate venue.. Waggie (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are better here than they are at Draft:Michael C. Grayson which has duplicate sources and which you marked as reviewed. Eyebeller 00:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eyebeller, I don't see where Praxidicae reviewed that draft. The only thing I see in the history is a ((UDP)) tag. Blablubbs|talk 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, didn't see that it was a draft. Eyebeller 01:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple of them are and I don't see why this should be deleted when other articles with worse sources were marked as reviewed by yourself. Eyebeller 00:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but you really should substantiate that statement, and probably at a more appropriate venue.. Waggie (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that the most significant coverage of the subject cited in the article, [25], alleges that Bichi was added to the Nigerian U17 team as bribery, a claim that is not included anywhere in the actual article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The references, in order: 1) A profile, provided by the player's agent, 2) An interview on a website where their "Advertise with us" page clearly supports advertorials ("Our team of strategists, researchers, designers, filmmakers and developers will work with you to create compelling editorial, graphical and video content, for distribution across our platforms and beyond.") on a site that looks like it's trying to rip-off The Guardian, 3) looks somewhat journalistic, 4) Interview (which looks suspiciously like a press release) in a paper trying to rip-off The Sun where the "journalist" is using the Slack logo as their avatar, 5) no by-line, interview, 6) another interview, by "MU", remarkably similar (or identical) to other sources), 7) another interview. With almost every single source not meeting WP:RS, it's clear that Praxidicae has this one pegged quite accurately. Waggie (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More mudslinging _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read the sources and not just look at the first few lines? Eyebeller 01:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] I read everyone of them in detail. Asking me if I read them is immaterial, however. Can you refute any of the statements I made about ANY of the sources? Waggie (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] It will be a waste of my time to read them all again, but from first glance, yes. Eyebeller 01:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] If you're going to accuse me of not reading the sources, then it's not a waste of your time. If you can refute, then do so, if not, then please retract your statement. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Your negativity on reliable sources is concerning. Eyebeller 01:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Your complete and total lack of understanding of sources and inability to back up a statement you've made is far more concerning and I suggest you stop doubling down. Thanks. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] I already told you, I'll stop reviewing as obviously the process hates me. Please also bear in mind that I'm really tired as this nonsense has kept me up for an hour now. Eyebeller 01:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Eyebeller No one is keeping you here. You are continuing to double down on statements for which you cannot back up, so you cannot be surprised that you are being called out for it. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] I bet you're really happy that you've lost an unhelpful AfC reviewer who never did anything good but at least you get your AfD. Eyebeller 01:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More mudslinging _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the sources and not just look at the first few lines? Eyebeller 01:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read everyone of them in detail. Asking me if I read them is immaterial, however. Can you refute any of the statements I made about ANY of the sources? Waggie (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It will be a waste of my time to read them all again, but from first glance, yes. Eyebeller 01:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to accuse me of not reading the sources, then it's not a waste of your time. If you can refute, then do so, if not, then please retract your statement. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your negativity on reliable sources is concerning. Eyebeller 01:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your complete and total lack of understanding of sources and inability to back up a statement you've made is far more concerning and I suggest you stop doubling down. Thanks. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you, I'll stop reviewing as obviously the process hates me. Please also bear in mind that I'm really tired as this nonsense has kept me up for an hour now. Eyebeller 01:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eyebeller No one is keeping you here. You are continuing to double down on statements for which you cannot back up, so you cannot be surprised that you are being called out for it. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you're really happy that you've lost an unhelpful AfC reviewer who never did anything good but at least you get your AfD. Eyebeller 01:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I do disagree with part of Waggie's source assessment. Source #2 is The Guardian (Nigeria), although it's the less-professional-looking mobile site (here's a better link). The most recent RSN discussion about this source suggests that the paper is relatively good by Nigerian standards, but varies in quality. For the article being cited, we can see that there's no byline, which is a bad sign. Coupled with citation #3, which claims that Abba Bichi, son of Yusuf Magaji Bichi, was added to the U17 team as a political favor (and further supported by this article I found on Sahara Reporters, [26]), I think there's reason to believe that this is indeed a paid ad and unreliable (which is probably true about this Wikipedia article as well). There may be a case for adding content about the corruption reporting to Yusuf Magaji Bichi and converting this page to a redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree that coverage is not significant, and this fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting NFOOTBALL is not required. Eyebeller 13:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I completely agree with the deletion arguments and have nothing to add on top of those as they've hit the nail on the head Spiderone 12:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mr. @Eyebeller can go back and forth by saying that meeting WP:NFOOTBALL is not required, but the article simply does not meet WP:GNG either. MYS77 ^✉ 03:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- agree with deletion arguments PangolinPedia 08:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created multiple times in draft, Draft:Abba Yusuf Bichi still doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:BASIC Was part of U17 team, but before that was playing in China in what's not considered a top tier league but only U17 or younger. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:42, 18 January 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 Lawrence R. Jacobs. Daniel (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Jacobs[edit]

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

One extant article (Lawrence R. Jacobs, a political scientist), but the director is mentioned at multiple articles, including the linked Cyberchase, so I don't think it qualifies for G14. Is Lawrence Jacobs, a lawyer and executive, likely to be known by this name? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interested in this one. I feel like it could end either with the disambig being deleted or with Jacobs-the-director usurping it as his currently-nonexistent article. I do intuitively feel like this should be G14-eligible. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lawrence R. Jacobs, G14 sounds good. I'll bite. Some Googling suggests that "Larry Jacobs" does often refer to Lawrence R. Jacobs, whereas Lawrence Jacobs (who you'll note already snagged WP:PTOPIC for the middle-initial-less "Lawrence Jacobs") goes by "Lon Jacobs", and is not commonly referred to as "Larry Jacobs", as our article Lawrence Jacobs says. However I suspect that Larry Jacobs will be back to being a disambiguation soon enough. Dang that was confusing to write. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And at a minimum many of those entries are WP:PARTIAL matches that need to be removed - Astrophobe (talk) 03:53, 13 January 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.