< January 21 January 23 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions for arpeggione[edit]

List of compositions for arpeggione (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary list of compositions that only includes one actual hyperlinked Wikipedia page Why? I Ask (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:49, 22 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. — The Earwig talk 01:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suhail Al Zarooni[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Suhail Al Zarooni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability as a businessperson and appears to be mostly notable for a bizare series of collections [1]. Though apparently well sourced, these sources are largely promotional in nature. The first and second AFDs had a single participant and were relisted. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His Excellency is a very known man in UAE, and there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.194.19.135 (talk) 06:43, 30 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. Sandstein 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Magnus[edit]

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Magnus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Identical with Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (consul 33): both are described as brothers of Faustus Cornelius Sulla (consul 31). The surname 'Magnus' must be incorrect. Avilich (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 26 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 and redirect to Watch strap#NATO Straps. — The Earwig talk 07:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NATO watch strap[edit]

NATO watch strap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"The durability of the strap prevents moisture from wicking away on the skin"; ", the G10 NATO strap has become a favourite among watch fans everywhere.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]"; "NATO straps are known for being relatively inexpensive"; "NATO straps are also known for being easy to clean and swap around for daily use"; "NATO straps are available in different sizes, lengths and designs to accommodate a wide variety of designs and watch composures"; "NATO straps are also used amongst deep sea divers and water-sports".

Instead of feeling informed, I feel like I should buy a watch and replace its strap with a NATO strap. As I was recently informed about the existence of WP:NCORP, these articles are expected to have content that sounds encyclopedic and not as an advert. According to this person here, who seems to work for a company owning the trademark, "the references used are only bloggers opinions with misleading information." The most reliable source seems to be Fortune[2], and the title "Your Watch Needs a NATO Strap" sounds like a sponsored-content article.

If the article is to be kept, it truly needs to be completely rewritten to be encyclopedic. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE that the editor who created this article is a litigious so and so who holds trademarks, and has initiated proceedings against others, but not us. Has today made a chilling legal threat though, but not in a particularly high profile spot. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 22:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More spurious trademark claims

International Watchman Inc. is only pursuing and advocating for its USPTO Trademark Rights in governing class 014 Watches, Watchbands and Watchstraps. Reg. #3,907,646.

NATO® is its own brand encompassing numerous products which are also registered under the USPTO, which is no different than NIKE®.

The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_watch_strap was written with misleading information and with non-credited sources only to establish personal commerce. Our intentions here are to amend and inform readers with correct information.

International Watchman is not promoting the NATO® brand. We are not mentioned anywhere in the article and are not intending to do so.

Reference links used can be easily viewed and determined as commercial websites and or bloggers intended for profit.

As clearly stated these reference links and written articles are in fault with your WikiPedia protocol and Guidelines. ie; conflict of interest , mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements , neutral point of view.

This article along with any reference or redirected article; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_strap) needs to be strictly construed with the same legal parameters by the USPTO and protocol adhered by wikipedia.

The redirected article is also an error and needs to be amended and corrected in the same fashion.

“Watch straps” cannot be categorized as NATO" straps unless followed by the Reg. Trademark ®. ie: Nike® Shoes. (not all Shoes are NIKE)

We appreciate your assistance accordingly in keeping wikipedia a creditable source for its community.

Respectfully,

International Watchman Inc. NATO® — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMan1215 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 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. Jax MN, if you want to work on the article in your userspace, drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll undelete it and move it there. (You should, however, obtain a consensus for re-creation at WP:DRV before moving it back to mainspace.) . Deor (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Sigma (Philippines)[edit]

Kappa Sigma (Philippines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This thoroughly fails WP:GNG or WP:ORG. WP:BEFORE, and on a Google News search, even with the search string "Philippines" spit out the United States fraternity, and not the Philippines-based one. I do see a handful of references relating to Filipinos, but not to the Philippines-based fraternity, but to the United States one. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One further benefit of this article is that it helps reduce natural confusion between the Philippine group and the larger Kappa Sigma fraternity, based in the US.
This rush to delete is arbitrary, without adherence to the consistent, methodical approach used by the active Fraternities and Sororities Project and an unnecessary example of "Deletionism" versus the more helpful and comprehensive approach of "Inclusionism". When a random AfD PROD appeared on the article, I wrote a more lengthy defense on the Talk page. It should have settled the matter there. There are some 1,200 national and local groups we track that are Notable, while we ourselves deem some 6,000 past or present fraternal organizations as Non-Notable. To pick at one, and waste time in a capricious AfD debate is pointless and harmful. Deletionism simply pushes away helpful new editors and opens the door to a broader, more inclusive competitor to Wikipedia. Neither are good outcomes. Jax MN (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused, why do you say "the standard used by the Fraternities and Sororities Project" and then point to a page solely edited by yourself? If you are going to argue based on some perceived consensus, at least point to a page where a consensus can be seen. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response Hello Duke. Project participants include those listed on our project page and many others who routinely monitor Greek pages. My efforts to update individual Talk pages and the Project Watchlist aim to help publicize pages to those who care about these articles, as an entry point, or re-engagement point. When new or experienced editors review the Project, they are now met with a list of general To Do items (there is much work to be done for the category), just as individual Greek articles are being given their own To Do suggestion lists. Various links bring them to the items I'd posted on Notability and on Syntax. Sure, I wrote the Notability section. --Fully in keeping with Wikipedia's broader policy, and written to more clearly state our specific issues. It collates what had previously been implied rules, and allows a backstop for consistency. While writing, I also was mindful of the standards used by Baird's Manual for inclusion. (Many, many thousands of collegiate societies do NOT meet those requirements.) As the premier reference work for the category, I appreciate that Baird's offers clarity on what groups were/are notable, and which aren't, in general alignment with Wikipedia. Thus, the section you mention offers consistency and clarity, and is fully open for revision or collaboration. Consensus-forming can take months. I certainly welcome that discussion. BOLD, n'est ce pas? Do you suggest another place where I ought to port this discussion for consensus? I thank you for your respectful inquiry on this, and for not rushing to delete, "per nom".
BTW, my secondary purpose is to welcome and mentor new users. This benefits Wikipedia, where too often new users get burned off because of aggressive demands for bloated citation, aggressive AfD PRODs, unfriendly jargon in edits and reverts, and other Deletionist tactics. These are bullying efforts, and harmful to our goal of making Wikipedia the most useful resource of its kind. Jax MN (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that Kappa Sigma (Philippines) is a valid group, and it exists. I fully agree with you Howard that citations are limited. Just yesterday I wrote to the group, seeking outside citations or university mention. In my experience, most of the 300 Philippine GLOs (Greek Letter Organizations) have poor external references available, far less than the typical US GLO, so I'd offered the rationale that a Philippine SEC registration (37 of them) would be a minimum requirement for inclusion on WP. Of course, we can apply a more stringent standard, leaving only a couple of groups with articles. (And open the door for a more comprehensive alternative to Wikipedia.) I would prefer that we leave this as a STUB or START page, inviting further citations. Jax MN (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not every organization that has existed will get a Wikipedia article. Please be versed with WP:ORG and ultimately WP:GNG. Existence does not mean notability. If WP:RS of a fraternity exists, you can easily find them. If there are only a handful of fraternities that fulfill this requirement, that's not our problem. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:58, 26 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) 20:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Momar Sakanoko[edit]

Momar Sakanoko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized and completely unreferenced biography of a basketball player and entrepreneur, not making any strong claim to passing our notability standards in either field. He has not played in any league that is listed in WP:NHOOPS as granting players an automatic presumption of notability, so his notability depends on being able to clear WP:GNG on his sourcing -- but there aren't any sources here at all, and while there used to be a couple in an older version of the article there weren't enough: the only genuinely reliable source present at all, in any prior version of the article, just glancingly mentioned his existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense. There's simply nothing stated here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 22 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. Sandstein 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Socialist Party (1987)[edit]

Scottish Socialist Party (1987) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties. Unlike their namesake, this Scottish Socialist Party has no notability which satisfies our policies, including the GNG principles for articles. Political parties are not automatically notable, particularly if they achieve nothing beyond standing for election which is to be expected of them. Article relies on one off-line reference. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 22 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 numbered roads in Ottawa. — The Earwig talk 07:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth Line Road[edit]

Tenth Line Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability given. Floydian τ ¢ 20:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Floydian τ ¢ 20:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 22 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) 01:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Heilbron[edit]

Terry Heilbron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. My WP:BEFORE search through Google books and British newspapers, as well as various search engines, did not yield any pieces of significant coverage. Sources invariably only cover Heilbron in a trivial way; for example, passing mentions in match reports, reporting of a manager saying they didn't like one of his refereeing decisions or an allegation of being manhandled by a player. An allegation of spitting in a local 5-a-side game is perhaps the only story that's more than trivial but I still think it borders on WP:NOTNEWS.

Even if this referee is somehow deemed notable, the article would need a complete rewrite as it is written very promotionally. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:20, 22 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. No need to drag this out. Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayra Rivera[edit]

Mayra Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Geoff | Who, me? 19:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:54, 22 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Buchanan[edit]

Darryl Buchanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor, unsuccessful mayoral candidate and bureaucrat in a midsized city. As always, people at this level of political office are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NPOL #2, he would have to be sourced to a significant range and depth of nationalizing coverage that established him as much more notable than the norm for local politicians. This does feature more actual sources than Terry Bankert, but they're still exclusively local coverage of a type and depth and number that's simply expected to routinely exist for all municipal-level politicians everywhere, and nothing about them establishes him as a special notability case over and above most other city councillors, unsuccessful mayoral candidates or city clerks. This simply isn't enough to make a person at this level of political office notable enough for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Bankert[edit]

Terry Bankert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a municipal bureaucrat in a midsized city. As always, people at this level of political office are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NPOL #2, he would have to be sourced to a significant range and depth of nationalizing coverage that established him as much more notable than most other city clerks or ombudsmen. But of the five footnotes here, four are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (e.g. his own website, the city's own self-published reports, raw tables of election results). There's only one news article in the local newspaper for reliable sourcing, and even that article just glancingly mentions Bankert without being about him to any non-trivial degree. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of a lot more and wider coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 22 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraful Alam Khokan[edit]

Ashraful Alam Khokan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable journalist. Deputy Press Secretary of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh isn't notable position. I did google search but didn't find anything notable. No significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There are some refs in the article but those are press release. Fails WP:JOURNALIST, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted on bnwiki for same reasons. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 22 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 Withdrawn. I think being the former Dean establishes WP:PROF and there's sourcing to verify. Thanks @ImTheIP: StarM 02:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC) StarM 02:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Taraki[edit]

Lisa Taraki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find significant, independent sources to provide evidence that she's notable as an activist, author, journalist or professor. Note yes, there are plenty of hits, mostly her own byline, which makes a search a little complicated. StarM 19:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:13, 22 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) 20:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Advocate[edit]

Anis Advocate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL Onel5969 TT me 19:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 22 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 07:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barebone, Kentucky[edit]

Barebone, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick, but Rennick's Trimble County directory and index only mention Barebone Creek with no mention of a community there. Nothing on the topos, and the newspapers.com results don't seem to suggest a community here. I don't think WP:GEOLAND (or even really WP:V) here is met. And even for an article about the small, routine creek, "Barebone, Kentucky" isn't going to be a logical name. Hog Farm Talk 18:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 18:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 18:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: Because this is a "ghost town", it doesn't really matter that there are "two barns and a farmhouse", a pile of ruins, or nothing. One of the features of a ghost town is that no one lives there anymore, which makes whether anyone actually used to live there the test of notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several sources, such as this one, refer to the "Barebone district".
  • This obituary discusses the school in Barebone, as does this source (original here). In that source some of the families that attended are listed. What is interesting is that there are obituaries with some of those same family names:
  • [10] - John Andrew died in 1939.
  • [11] - members of the Callis family.
  • A local genealogical and historical website compiled census data and clippings from The Trimble Democrat, where Barebone is mentioned many times as a place people were born, lived, and died. Unfortunately, the link is blacklisted by Wikipedia. See...http:// + search.freefind.com/servlet/freefind?id=7853207&pageid=r&mode=ALL&query=barebone&mode=Match+ALL
When I created the article I chose not to include these sources because the information was either not notable, or the source was primary. However, these sources do establish--unless the genealogical and historical community of Trimble County have conspired to create a fictional place called "Barebone"--that many people did indeed call Barebone home. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A paper that I found for Trimble County, which mentions only Barebone Creek, in the La Posta: A journal of American postal history is:
Rennick, R.M., 2001, The Post Offices of Trimble County, Kentucky. La Posta: A journal of American postal history.32(1), pp. 58-62 Paul H. (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rennick Trible county place names is one of the source cited in the nomination statement. Paul, thanks for alerting me to the existence of Rennick's post office guides, as those may prove useful in future searches about KY place stubs. I was aware of Rennick having a large index and county-by-county directories, but not the post office document with lists of communities. Hog Farm Talk 21:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - The corrected link to index of Rennick's manuscripts and notes is Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection. Paul H. (talk) 03:24, 30 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 deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Khali[edit]

Pablo Khali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Avoids WP:A7 due to the claims of significant awards and charting in a notable chart. I don't think this passes WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG; the Billboard and 2015 Nigeria Entertainment Awards claims look like hoaxes. I could not find a source to verify them. Most of the sources don't mention Khali at all. Nothing of note coming up for "Ojako Peter Godfrey" or "Ojako Sunday Peter". Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9 out of the 14 refs are not even about Khali. They are about Lil Kesh, Wiz Khalifa, Boy Pablo and Pablo Escobar! We also need to pay diligence to the fact that this is an autobiography and the creator's activity strongly suggests that they are here for the sole purpose of promoting themselves and are bordering on WP:NOTHERE. I do believe that we need to do what we can to encourage newbies to stay and feel welcome but I do not believe that we should be encouraging them to write autobiographies or to promote themselves in any other way. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:45, 23 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Rosier[edit]

Malik Rosier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He was the starting QB at Miami (a Power 5 team), passed for 4,543 yards and 34 TDs and received extensive coverage as such. A few examples: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Cbl62 (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:46, 22 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) 20:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Simonson[edit]

Troy Simonson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, just being the CEO of a company does not give a free pass to notability. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources are either passing mentions, announcements or profiles on some websites and I can see nothing that establishes independent notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. GSS 💬 16:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 16:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Primary author: Agree with community's comments regarding deletion.

This profile covers Troy Simonson, who was the first CEO of one of the ten largest orthopedic healthcare organizations in the entire United States.

Contrary to the comment from User GSS, the articles referenced do not make a passing reference to Troy Simonson, but rather he is indeed the subject of these majority of the articles. I would ask that potential reviewers please actually open these articles to see this themselves. The reason for this coverage is that the CEO of one of the largest healthcare groups in the US has a very significant impact.

The sources for these articles include 1) the Star Tribute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Tribune) which is the largest newspaper in the state of Minnesota, 2) Beckers (a leading healthcare newspaper referenced throughout wikipedia), and 3) the Business Journal, among others.

I have not yet been through a deletion debate, but I hope this helps to clarify to the Wikipedia community why this figure absolutely fits the criteria for notability and should be kept. I have worked to edit and further Wikipedia's articles on notable healthcare figures, inspired in part by the low number of articles on these figures relative to others like pop culture and wealthy financiers. I am not sure how someone can do much more to be notable within healthcare, but deliberately reviewed the General Notability Guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline) before publishing this and believe that Troy Simonson certainly fits these criteria.

Thank you for taking the time to be a part of this community.

RJorst10 (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)— RJorst10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:29, 22 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 main point of contention between the keep and merge/redirect !votes isn't about sourcing or content but about how articles about exoplanets and the star systems they're found in should be organized. That discussion should be done at a more appropriate forum to allow for broader input than an AfD for a singular article, such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-1638[edit]

Kepler-1638 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. No popular coverage, no in-depth scientific publications, just one star/exoplanet in various lists of a thousand plus objects. Lithopsian (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your comment. The list of potentially habitable exoplanets is actually very low (60 at the moment). I created the article because the vast majority of these exoplanets have also Wikipedia articles about their stars. IMO this particular one falls within the criteria nº 3 (The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, including newspaper articles). The study of the star is actually what led to find the exoplanet. I honestly think both go together: the star system itself. In addition, it is the farthest star with a known potentially habitable exoplanet ExoEditor 18:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since there was already an article on Kepler-1638b, creating an article on its host star makes sense. IMO articles on exoplanet host stars should take priority over articles on individual exoplanets, since any exoplanet is a subtopic of its planetary system; an article on a star shouldn't be deleted or merged if (an) article(s) on its planet(s) are kept. For one thing, having an article on the host star means that if any additional planets are discovered in the system, they can all be described in a single article. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both Kepler-1638 and Kepler-1638b to List of potentially habitable exoplanets. The nominator seems to be correct that this system doesn't meet WP:NASTRO - there's no coverage of it individually, just as one of a large number of Kepler systems. Since the main source of interest in Kepler-1638b is that it's listed as a potentially habitable planet, both articles should be redirected to that list. There also isn't much to say about the system beyond basic data that can fit in a list entry. I'd also be fine with keeping, or merging the planet article into the star article (but not the reverse). SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some edits to the above comment (now two comments); hopefully this clarifies things. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep The object is at least a bit notable for having a potentially habitable exoplanet. And Kepler-1638b is pretty notable so I would not merge it into the list of potentially habitable exoplanets. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kepler-1638b. The star is only notable because of the exoplanet, and there isn't even anything to write about it other than the basic parameters. The exoplanet is notable, Ref. 5 [20] does talk about it individually. Tercer (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that counts as significant coverage per WP:NASTRO, but in that case the planet article should be merged into the star article per my comment above. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, as the exoplanet happens to be notable enough. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kepler-1229b, I agree with you. ExoEditor 18:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above by Kepler-1229b and Exoeditor. WolreChris (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Kepler-1638b into Kepler-1638. There are going to be a *lot* of exoplanets found in the coming years, and I think a policy should be made about how to handle them. IMHO it makes the most sense to have the star and all of its planets covered in a single article, and name the page after the star, except in the spectacularly rare instances (just our Solar System?) where enough is known about one of the planets that covering that planet along with the rest of its system-mates would make the article too long.PopePompus (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, the exoplanet is notable enough. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that the exoplanet is not notable. I just think from an organizational point of view it would make sense to put all of the information about each "exo-Solar System" into a single article, unless that would make the article too long. Both the star page and the planet page are only one paragraph long. Why not put everything known about that system into a single article, named after the star? There could be redirects for notable planets.PopePompus (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that makes perfect sense; List of potentially habitable exoplanets has plenty of examples, such as Kepler-26 and Kepler-26b, or even silly stuff like Gliese 1061, Gliese 1061 c, and Gliese 1061 d. I don't think here is the proper place to discuss this, though. Perhaps you should suggest this mass-merge at WT:ASTRO? Tercer (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your examples show exactly what I was trying to suggest. Would Wikipedia really be better if Kepler-26 and Kepler-26b were separate articles, with Kepler-26 repeating some of the information available on the Kepler-26b page, in order to establish notability? I don't think so. If nothing else, minimizing the amount of duplicated information appearing in separate articles makes maintaining the articles easier.PopePompus (talk) 17:57, 28 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. The one "keep" opinion does not name the sources that supposedly establish notability. Sandstein 22:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell X[edit]

Campbell X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am opening this discussion as a courtesy to Sophiemayer, who will post a statement. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to 331dot. There are no current public sources that affirm Campbell X's gender identity (he/him) and available sources deadname and misgender the filmmaker (according to Wiki Gender Identity guidelines). I would appreciate the page being deleted, with the hope that reliable and accurate public sources are available in the future.Sophiemayer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 22 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. Tone 16:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander McCormick Jr.[edit]

Alexander McCormick Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:59, 22 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. Tone 16:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warren, California[edit]

Warren, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another NN rail location that never shows up as more than a few trackside buildings. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 22 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of 12 oz. Mouse characters[edit]

List of 12 oz. Mouse characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsalvageable fancruft; maybe the major characters can have a quick mention in 12 oz. Mouse as part of the Cast section, but even still, it seems better to do that from scratch than try to merge. ~EdGl talk 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately it seems to happen a lot. ~EdGl talk 00:23, 28 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. Tone 16:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Houser[edit]

Ralph Houser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find significant independent coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Navy Cross is a second tier gallantry medal and top rank reached was colonel, so subject does not meet requirements of WP:SOLDIER Dumelow (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to see what the above sources say about the subject, can you elaborate on this? The only mention I could find in a search online was in a history of the USS Lexington where he's mentioned as CO of the marines onboard and for his actions in reacting to a bomb strike, but nothing that struck me as providing sufficient notability. Not an expert, but surely the "book" would have to include attribution to comply with the CC by SA license? - Dumelow (talk) 16:14, 22 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. Tone 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Huttleston Rogers Coe[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Henry Huttleston Rogers Coe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was up for deletion almost 15 years ago as part of a web of family biographies and closed as no consensus. His father, mother and son may all be notable, but there's nothing here in this article that would be a claim of notability and I found no meaningful reliable and verifiable sources about him in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 15:03, 22 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olumide Gbenro[edit]

Olumide Gbenro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

completely and utterly non-notbale individual, when we remove all the paid sources and blatant non rs (of which I've removed most) we are left with one, which is a podcast. There is no in depth coverage in actual rs. CUPIDICAE💕 14:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 15:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 15:40, 22 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. Tone 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Elliott (character)[edit]

Steve Elliott (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:49, 22 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 14:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew - Piotrus provided one sentence. His evidence is right here for everyone to see. . Yet considering you have not presented a single sentence to defend your position, what I see is not a reading deficiency. You claim "detailed coverage," yet you provided zero proof, not even a single sentence to back up your claims. That's a deficiency, really, and of a pretty low sort - claiming that sources exist yet ignoring to provide quotations when asked. If, as you indicated above, it is a chore to provide evidence to back up your claims, perhaps you should concentrate on contributing to discussions in places you don't find so tiresome. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:21, 24 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. Tone 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swapnalokam[edit]

Swapnalokam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:19, 14 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 14:13, 22 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. Tone 16:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Jaraya[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mohammed Jaraya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Been deleted twice before, and nothing has changed regarding his notability since the last deletion. While he has fought in Glory competitions, the standard is fighting for one of their world titles, which he has not. Fails WP:NKICK. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is top 10 ranked fighter in Glory, so he meets the requirements. he is the most popular fighter in his division and has made his name in the kickboxing world as early as 18 years old. he is also extremely popular on social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.137.2.195 (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a new, and currently blocked, user you need to understand that no kickboxing organization's rankings have an impact on WP notability. Independent world rankings do. If you can provide evidence of such rankings, please do so and I will change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kickboxing athlete is presumed notable if they:

Fought for a world title of a major organization or promotion (K-1, WMC, ISKA, WAKO-Pro, Glory, It's Showtime, WKN, WBC Muaythai, PKA (through 1986), or WKA (through 2000)). Jaraya is fighting for the major organization Glory. that's enough according to the requirements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.129.62 (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Another new IP from the Netherlands. Fighting for a world title is not the same as fighting for a promotion. It's worth noting that he's ranked #8 in his division by Glory, but the fighter ranked #1 isn't even mentioned in Combat Press's world top 10. He's not close to meeting WP:NKICK. Papaursa (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information; he doesn’t use Facebook and Twitter. He only has a Instagram page withover 210.000 followers. He is a big name in kockboxing and Holland&Morocco. Clearly you guys don’t know a lot about the sport. 85.148.129.62 (talk) 22:40, 26 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animal (Hindi Film)[edit]

Animal (Hindi Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable future film, WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFF. Should be Draftified until release. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:06, 22 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Curry (actor, born 1987)[edit]

Russell Curry (actor, born 1987) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A PROD was removed without explaination. My reason for why this article should be deleted is the same. It is simply too soon to have an article on this actor right now as he has not starred or directed Any notable productions and was just cast for a TV show that has not even started yet. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:51, 22 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Barua[edit]

Nick Barua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Successful businessman, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 22 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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Tie[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cathy Tie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd like to revisit the previous AfD from a couple years ago. The promised improvements have not materialized, and this article remains promotional in tone. I am not sure that the sources relied upon for notability would be accepted today - Forbes 30 under 30 coverage, and a profile in a student magazine of a school she attended (making the coverage dependent). That leaves a single profile in CNN; not enough to establish notability. FalconK (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So that Forbes 30 under 30 thing is impressive? Got to admit it strikes me a bit dull tbh (half the world must be named in those lists by now - what are the Forbes criteria?), but happy to accept it if it is a legit 'thing' StupidLookingKid (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC) — StupidLookingKid (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment It is widely considered to be very prestigious, the selection of recipients makes national news (example: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/innovation/six-irish-people-included-on-forbes-30-under-30-list-1.4205031) In regards to the selection process https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30-nominations/ "Reporters, editors and expert judges consider a variety of factors, including: funding, revenue, social impact, inventiveness and potential. Nominee shortlists are shared with each category's four-judge panel who select the final 30 listees in their assigned category." In a given field, there are a few million "under-30s" working in it, the award honors the top 30 in each field. On its own, Forbes 30 under 30 is not enough for notability per WP standards, however, taken together with her CNN profile, news feature in Fast Company, news feature in TechCo, and Theil fellowship news stories (more prestigious than Forbes)... together it strongly meets notability requirements with reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicNotes (talk • contribs) 01:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A search for "Forbes 30 under 30" lists in AfD will show that we do not generally assume notability based upon them. FalconK (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed, that "Forbes 30 under 30" alone does not provide notability, but taken together with the other news and awards cited, I think from that there is a strong case for notability here.
    • Sure, but what's out there is seriously lacking. Coverage in Fast Company is limited to a single paragraph in an article about the Thiel Fellowship. The Thiel Fellowship also doesn't automatically confer notability; though a few recipients are indeed notable, there seems to be a preponderance for many or most of them to have promotional and questionably sourced articles created about them. Tech.co doesn't appear to cover her at all - the only result on the site with her name is a listing of her name and company with no content. The CNN Business profile article is primarily an interview with her, relies heavily on direct quotations from her, and so is questionably independent - but it is also but one source, not enough to demonstrate significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. So what is left? FalconK (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Per GNG: ""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 article cites substantial coverage in Globe and Mail and Toronto Star, a photo and paragraph in Fast Company, all in 2015. Then in 2018, there is extremely detailed coverage by CNN when she became a partner at Cervin. This degree of coverage meets WP:BASIC. Notability can and should be deduced from policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • VocalIndia's thoughts are welcomed but the accusation was unnecessary. FalconK seems to be a respected user with 17 years of editing experience here. Such accusations should include evidence or should be respectfully removed. The guidelines of Wikipedia are to assume good faith. CosmicNotes (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really Sorry to FalconK. I'm misunderstanding you because you are only puting AFD on many businesspersons. VocalIndia (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there a reason why this AfD remains open, looks like 3+ weeks old, I thought the policy is that they are closed or relisted by admins after ~7 days? CosmicNotes (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also angry on this bias at some AfDs. Some AfD closure are biased. They will not close until we get more delete votes. How Shameless admins. What is the community value of these AfDs? VocalIndia (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
VocalIndia, there appears to have been an issue transcluding this page to the AfD log; as far as I can tell, the discussion has only ever been listed for today January 22nd's log, which would explain why the admins that patrol AfD haven't closed it yet: it wasn't in the logs that they have been patrolling. If my assessment is correct, it actually shouldn't be closed until the 29th, when it's been properly listed for at least a week, at which point it can be closed normally. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was apparently due to a hiccup with the relisting script, during re-listing [21] the script gave up mid-way and didn't re-transclude or add a tag to this discussion. The discussion was originally correctly transcluded for an entire week so it may be closed – Thjarkur (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok, I am convinced by the 30 under 30 thing (and look forward to finding the Forbes 80 under 80 list). Am a bit of newb but agree that leaving a vote open seems a bit wrong. StupidLookingKid (talk) 18:55, 22 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 Grambling State Tigers. Fenix down (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GSU Soccer Complex (Grambling State)[edit]

GSU Soccer Complex (Grambling State) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was redirected to Grambling State Tigers for failing WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD; non-notable university football pitch with no significant coverage whatsoever outside of primary sources.

I had left an explanation, on the creator's talk page, of the reasons why I felt the article should be redirected and also suggested that the content could be merged into the parent article if absolutely necessary.

My redirect was reverted without explanation so I'm taking it to AfD to establish consensus as to whether this does warrant an article. In my view and in my experience, a football stadium is not exempt from notability guidelines. I would not oppose either a restoring of the redirect or a merge (as a last resort) of the sentences into the parent article, which is currently very small anyway. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it only because I believe it offers differentiation between itself and GSU Soccer Complex -Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any sources other than the university's own website covering this in depth? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as per my nom, I would only consider merge as a last resort. Deletion is preferred. Redirect itself is debatable as it could be argued that this isn't a plausible search term. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the last part of my nom to clarify this a bit more as an AfD and not a requested merge now, thanks Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:18, 22 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 political parties in British Columbia#Historical parties. Sandstein 21:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation Party of British Columbia[edit]

Annexation Party of British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short-lived political party that never ran any candidates. Might merit a mention on Movements for the annexation of Canada to the United States. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Movements for the annexation of Canada to the United States. Definitely not notable enough to warrant its own article, but still notable enough to warrant mentioning in said article. Pladica (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:49, 22 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dude (company)[edit]

Hey Dude (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources used are all from a UK retailer. After a WP:BEFORE search, I believe there is no indecent and reliable coverage to suggest that this company is notable. WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY are not met. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have since added additional sources. Please note the original sources provided are in fact from the official company website as opposed to a retailer. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out. The difference is minimal: both are non-independent sources because they have an interest in promoting the subject. About the additional sources: it's not the product but the company that needs to be covered. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further sources provided focusing more on the company. Please review. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Motley Fool and LinkedIn? These are a far cry from reliable sources. The closest thing to a solid source is the promotional piece by Men's Journal. Please review WP:Rs and WP:IS before adding more sources to the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:45, 22 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. Tone 16:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnett Springs, Kentucky[edit]

Barnett Springs, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found this one to be a very confusing case. There's no Barnett Springs described in Rennick's Adair County directory, although his index refers to it as a locale; locales generally fail WP:GEOLAND. Topos show three isolated buildings. GNIS states that Barnett Springs was also known as May, and cites that to Rennick, but Rennick doesn't make a connection between May and Barnett Springs. Instead, May is said to be another name of Parson, Kentucky, which was just a post office in a store with Mr. May being the postmaster. Newspapers.com didn't bring up anything meaningful for Barnett Springs for me, and neither did Google books. Google just brought up the standard automated pages created for every GNIS entry and some WP mirrors. I'm not seeing any indication this site ever had legal recognition, and the connection to May/Parson seems pretty tenuous. WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG don't seem to be met. Hog Farm Bacon 23:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 23:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 23:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:41, 22 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Street Railway Route 5 Delaware[edit]

Hamilton Street Railway Route 5 Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a bus route, does not meet WP:GNG. I would have redirected it to the main page, however the note the author left at the top of the page makes it clear the redirect would be reverted.  // Timothy :: talk  12:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  12:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  12:13, 22 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. Tone 16:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Life of Nephi[edit]

The Life of Nephi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE, Wikipedia is not an IMdB mirror. (Previously PROD by Donaldd23) ~RAM (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~RAM (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:42, 22 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 Forgotten Realms#Characters. Consensus to not keep. Opinion is split between merge and redirect, but redirect makes less sense as long as there is no mention of this character at the target location, so I'm going with a (very selective) merge for now. Sandstein 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jarlaxle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jarlaxle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 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 (there are few passing mentions like [22] but no serious, in-depth analysis I can find). The article is 99% plot-summary fancruft. Reception is limited to a paragraph mention on a "Game Rant's 2020 "10 Must-Have NPCs In Dungeons & Dragons Lore To Make Your Campaigns Awesome" ". Previous AfD was keep even through half the votes were based on an "argument" stating that " Wikipedia consensus that the major characters in novels or novel series are inherently notable" - even through of course there was no such consensus back then and certainly there is none right now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:32, 22 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 11:32, 22 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 11:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haleth, why do you continue in discussing contributors here? Your stance doesn't seem to align well with AGF/NPA. Please focus on discussing the topic at question (the nominated article), not the nominator. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my point or vote on the topic, and my comments are in response to his deletion rationale of this discussion, since Piotrus brought up his own stance from a prior AfD on his own accord. You, on the other hand, have contributed nothing to this discussion so far other then singling me out for comment. Haleth (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I appreciate you providing an explanation and your openness to consider sources. I have the impression, though, that you are overlooking sections where the name of the topic does not appear: I count six mentions of the name Jarlaxle in the three pages, rather than "once or twice", and he is also referred to as "the mercenary", etc. I am not very convinced of the test you suggest, as it can easily exclude valid information that is relevant to the article, but only tangentially related to the main topic of the author. I suggest a different test: If I wrote in my words what is in the source, and only gave the primary sources as references, would I be critizised for WP:OR? If that was the case, than there seems to have been some kind of research done by the author. The amount of analysis can of course be debated. Daranios (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daranios, "If I wrote in my words what is in the source, and only gave the primary sources as references, would I be criticised for WP:OR". It is a good test, but here, the answer is 'no', since I think this source doesn't go beyond a plot summary. I don't think it is analytical enough that the author describes the subject as a mercenary or describes him as subtle. That's just a plot summary. Analysis, to me, would exist if the author said something like 'Jarlaxe is an example of a Sheaksperian tragicomic character mixed with Horward's classic barbarian, with a sprinkle of postfeminist character building". I hope you can see the difference. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: I have now added what I see in that secondary source as analysis. It also contains plot summary elements, but I think these are necessary to get the analysis part here. I'll readily admit that this does not reach the level you posted as an example; Jarlaxle is not compared to Conan, but to the Knight - I wonder how these two are ranked in global importance. With all these caveats, let's do the test: If I took away de Launay's name and reworded the direct quotations, I still would not feel comfortable to let this paragraph stand with only giving Exile as a source. Would you? Daranios (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daranios, Well, you are right that there would be some OR/editorializing. Let's take the 'Knight' example. It is original, as in, we, the editors, can't make such a comparison. de Launay makes it, and it's her original contribution. But it is a substantial analysis? I don't think so, it's few sentences, and as you say, it's done in the context of the comparison of the book trilogy's plot, which is the main subject. What I'd recommend is to rescue your work and merge the paragraph to the Trilogy in question, as IMHO really what she is analyzing is not Jarlaxe as the books he appears in (and correct me if I am wrong but he is not the main character, but just a supporting one in those, right?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: To quote the secondary source found by Haleth, Jarlaxle is a "popular supporting character", indeed. Which, like being the main topic of a secondary source or not, is not a criterion for WP:GNG. The quote may be somewhat relevant for the discussion you have with Dream Focus and Haleth below. I myself then stick with the result of my test and my opinion that a merge is fine, but keep is also warranted, and slightly preferred by me. I curiously wait how the decision will be in the end. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... I don't think there's any actual connection between the Realms and the writings of R.A. Salvatore, or Wikipedia's coverage thereof, and Trumpism/white supremacy, but the (false) connection has certainly been drawn in the past by (bad-faith? trolling? ignorant?) redditors specifically targeting me (i.e., the fact that I had edited an article with the title "Wulfgar", combined with my username's reference to my year of birth also apparently being a dog-whistle among American and German neo-Nazi groups, was used as "evidence" that I was X, Y and Z), and really I wasn't thinking about the events in Washington so much as alluding to the refusal to accept reality or read the writing on the wall, which is a quality definitely shared by the Trumpists and the people who reflexively !vote "keep" in all these AFDs on fictional characters.
That said, you are right, and I probably should have been more thoughtful about the events in the District of Columbia and elsewhere in the United States in recent weeks, and I apologize for this oversight. I hope this clears it up.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:50, 29 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Lighting[edit]

Hidden Lighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a product/feature on certain car models. Article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT. Couldn't find a suitable redirect target, not sure if the article title would be a good redirect for search.  // Timothy :: talk  10:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  10:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  10:49, 22 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. Subject does not appear to meet notability criteria at this time. Lengthy argument about the subject's accomplishments is not a substitute for reliable third-party sources. RL0919 (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Middleton[edit]


Reggie Middleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page for cryptocurrency promoter. No evidence of notability, either under WP:GNG or any more specific criterion. WP:BEFORE shows extensive coverage in cryptocurrency sites, but almost nothing in RSes - just passing mentions and occasional columns by the subject; none of the sort of coverage required for a WP:BLP. Needs strong, mainstream sourcing, strong enough to support the presence of a BLP, to avoid deletion. David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Corroborated by CNBC, Bloomberg, CNN, BBC, RT AND his blog "Boom Bust" Reggie called the collapse of bear sterns 2 months before it happened as well as the fall of lehman brothers before anyone had a clue. Hes sold his research to institutional investors since 2007 and VERY early on caught on to the crypto space.
Infact he was so early and had such a breadth of knowledge in finance already, that he invented the first DEFI in 2013, filed his earliest patent on it in 2015 and was awarded the patent by japan late in to 2020.
Having recognized and expressed the need for disintermediation in financial markets (middlemen fees taking most of people's returns) then actually being the FIRST EVER to solve that problem through Veritaseum - i'm seeing him as a VERY notable, significant, INTERESTING, and Unique/Unusual addition to Wikipedia Bios!
When you call history before it happens, then make history by innovating the way things are done... that deserves a wiki bio at least right?
Sounds Notable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxwellSwanson (talk • contribs) 08:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC) — MaxwellSwanson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus keep, especially with the sources provided. They should be included in the article, though. Tone 16:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struldbrugg[edit]

Struldbrugg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Old literary neologism (if such a thing is not a contradiction...). 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, the word is occasionally used but either in plot summaries or a case could be made it is a form of WP:DICTDEF and a rare neologism (but there is no analysis of the term itself, the fact that the word is occasionally used doesn't make it notable, as explained by GNG - we don't have WP:Notability (neologisms) to offer any further insight). PROD (and notability tag) removed with no rationale. Sigh. PS. I did consider proposing a merger to Luggnagg (a related concept but of dubious notability itself anyway) but the article is pretty much unreferenced and very WP:ORish too, so there is nothing to merge in the current version anyway. Maybe a redirect, but since the notability tag was contested, I expect a redirect would be as well, hence the need for AfD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC) PPS. I should also caution that the 'Struldbrugg story' is likely notable and deserves an article written about it - but it should not be confused with the narrower topic of 'Struldbrugg race' which is the subject of the current article (and hence the nomination). What is notable here is the story and its literary analysis, but this tiny under-referenced and confusingly structured article tries to argue that the fictional race is notable, and as such it merits a WP:TNT treatment, with no prejudice to someone writing about the 'Struldbrugg story', more commonly referred to in studies as 'Struldbrugg episode', and redirecting this term there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:48, 22 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 09:44, 22 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 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is 20 years old!
  1. Fear of Death in Gulliver’s Travels
  2. Gulliver and the Struldbruggs
  3. Of Struldbruggs, sugar, and gatekeepers
  4. Swift's Struldbruggs, Progress, and the Analogy of History
  5. Swift's Struldbruggs
  6. The Struldbruggs, the Houyhnhnms, and the Good Life
  7. Swift's Immortals
  8. A Possible Source for Swift's Struldbrugs?
  9. The Allegory of Luggnagg and the Struldbruggs in "Gulliver's Travels"
  10. The Struldbrugs of Luggnagg and an age-old problem foretold
  11. The Struldbruggs and the changing language of aging in Swift's world
  12. Eunsu Kang's Struldbrugg
  13. How Swift's old-age horrors came true
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, None of your sources demonstrate that the concept is discussed beyond WP:DICTDEF usage. But I admit there is some confusion here (which in hindsight I should've addressed in the opening nomination), as Gulliver's Travels's Part 3 is titled "A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan", and Swift's work have been subject to significant literary analysis. This means that there is a considerable discussion of the "Struldbrugg episode" from this part) or such. But this simply contributes to the notability of Gulliver's Travels, which needs much expansion and perhaps even a subarticle for each of its main parts. But we should not confuse the discourse of the 'Struldbrugg episode' with the notability of the fictional term. What is notable here is the real-life 'Struldbrugg story' (a piece of fiction written by Swift), not the fictional Struldbrugg race of immortal (but aging) humanoids. The literary analysis cited by you above is about the story, not the race. PS. I did consider whether the article could be rescued by being rewritten into a discussion of the 'Struldbrugg story' but the problem is that next to nothing in the current confusing, semi-off topic and underreferenced stub is worth saving and so WP:TNT treatment is best. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If one reads the policy WP:DICTDEF, rather than just making a vague wave towards it, one finds that it explains the difference between a dictionary entry and an encyclopedia article. A dictionary focusses on the word qua word – "its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages" &c. Neither our article nor the sources listed show much interest in the word, which appears to have been invented by Swift. Their focus is on the concept – the clever satire of Swift which is now seen to be prescient. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about all aspects of Swift's conception. My !vote stands.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syeda Hira Fatima Naqvi[edit]

Syeda Hira Fatima Naqvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recent PhD (2018), h index of 2 according to Google Scholar. No evidence of meeting WP:NPROF. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 22 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. Tone 16:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muthu (1976 film)[edit]

Muthu (1976 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources are RS except this. But this article should be deleted for the same reason various other creations of User:Vaidyasr have been deleted; this film lacks sources, and fails WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 22 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. Tone 16:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Schoolland[edit]

Ken Schoolland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found during cleanup after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Zhao Schoolland. This one fails WP:NACADEMIC. Not a full professor, and the bibliography consists mainly of newspaper pieces. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 22 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. Nomination withdrawn with no comment supporting deletion. RL0919 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Dog Breeders Association[edit]

American Dog Breeders Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Completely non-notable breed club for the American Pit Bull Terrier that purports to be a kennel club. An extensive search found only a single source, already cited on the page, that comes anywhere close to meeting WP:SIGCOV, [26], and that’s debatable. Otherwise there are just a few mentions in a couple of books, [27][28] and the online Encyclopædia Britannica on their pit bull page. Cavalryman (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, upon reflection this is a viable search term, I will work with the page contributors to improve the sourcing, and if unable then a future merger with APBT may be an option. Cavalryman (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly suggesting 34 words "addresses the topic ... in detail"? Much more than a mere mention is required to meet WP:GNG. When looking for sources to improve the page I certainly expected to find more, but as you have just demonstrated there’s not much out there. Cavalryman (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that there was more discussion of the topic in those sources. I just copied the excerpts included in the Google Search results. wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a Wikipedia editor, your task is much more than to simply assume - do the research and then form your opinion. William Harris (talk) 07:03, 26 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. — The Earwig talk 06:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptonews[edit]

Cryptonews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an assortment of non-independent social media content and info about the company's editorship. I have not been able to locate any significant coverage, much less in reliable sources. WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY are not met. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding WP:GNG: two or more pieces of coverage in reliable, independent sources are needed. The Yahoo Finance page is a press release, which are classed as non-independent at WP:PRSOURCE. I have also consulted the article you mentioned. (Here's a link if other editors want to view this). The subject is used as a source in footnote 12. I fail to see how this amounts to significant coverage. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olivas-Lujan, Miguel R. "Blockchains 2019 in e-HRM: Hit or Hype?." HRM 4.0 For Human-Centered Organizations. Emerald Publishing Limited, 2019.
Calcaterra, Craig, Wulf A. Kaal, and Vadhindran Rao. "Stable Cryptocurrencies: First Order Principles." Stan. J. Blockchain L. & Pol'y 3
- Blake, M. Brian. "Crowdsharing Idle Processor Time." IEEE Computer Architecture Letters 22.04 (2018): 4-5. Calcaterra, Craig, Wulf A. Kaal, and Vadhindran Rao. "Stable Cryptocurrencies: First Order Principles." Stan. J. Blockchain L. & Pol'y 3 (2020): 62.
- Sengupta, Ushnish, and Henry Kim. "Business Process Transformation in Natural Resources Development Using Blockchain: Indigenous Entrepreneurship, Trustless Technology, and Rebuilding Trust." Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology Use Cases. Springer, Cham, 2020. 171-200.
- Raghunath, Nilanjan. "Full Employment and the Cryptocurrency Economy: Lessons Learnt from Michael Polanyi." Tradition and Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical 46.2 (2020): 43-56.
- Ushnish, Sengupta, and Kim Henry. "BUSINESS PROCESS TRANSFORMATION IN NATURAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT USING BLOCKCHAIN: INDIGENOUS ENTREPRENEURSHIP, TRUSTLESS TECHNOLOGY, AND REBUILDING TRUST."
- Blake, M. Brian. "Crowdsharing Idle Processor Time." IEEE Computer Architecture Letters 22.04 (2018): 4-5. Wiśniewska, Anna. "Obszary wykorzystania walut wirtualnych w działalności przedsiębiorstwa." (2018).
- Castillo, Eva M. "Understanding the Use of Malware and Encryption." OUR Journal: ODU Undergraduate Research Journal 7.1 (2020): 2. - Wiśniewska, Anna. "VIRTUAL CURRENCIES IN AN ENTREPRENEURSHIP–AREA OF APPLICATION." Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Nauki Humanistyczno-Spoleczne. Zarzadzanie 45.3 (2018): 7.
- Wiśniewska, Anna. "Waluty wirtualne w kontekście teorematu regresji Ludwiga von Misesa." Catallaxy 2.1 (2017): 37-45. - Teichmann, Fabian Maximilian Johannes, and Marie-Christin Falker. "Cryptocurrencies and financial crime: solutions from Liechtenstein." Journal of Money Laundering Control (2020). Topjur01 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does this address my concern that there is no significant coverage of this subject? Please stop posting walls of text and try to point out one place where this company is discussed by a reliable source at length. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not wish to do a wall of text. I now corrected it by adding breaks. When scholarly publications cite one source a lot, does that not make it significant? Topjur01 (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:SIGCOV states that significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. For example, this article constitutes significant coverage of Mike Pompeo. Also, you have !voted "keep" three times now. Each editor is only allowed one !vote at each AfD. Would you mind erasing two of your three keep !votes? Modussiccandi (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered this objection in my above comment which I encourage you to read. The issue revolves around significant coverage of which none has been conclusively produced. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "none has been conclusively produced"? Each of these ten highly influential academic publications cited Cryptonews as a source used in scholarly research or publication. If it is enough reliable for scholars - ten of them - it should be enough for Wikipedia. Topjur01 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing to the non-encyclopedic sentence and to the reference to Yahoo Finance. I removed these sentences. There is no more self-referencing apart from one sentence. This self-referencing in one sentence, however, is not a reason to remove the whole article, I hope. Thank you for letting me know. Topjur01 (talk) 13:51, 28 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. Tone 16:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Przasnyski[edit]

Marcin Przasnyski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional , with no detailed coverage about him besides press releases and PR-style interviews. No reason to suspect anything else- DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 22 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) Jack Frost (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Logsdail[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Leonard Logsdail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article. –Cupper52Discuss! 16:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:42, 22 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) 09:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiza Khatun[edit]

Hafiza Khatun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Member of lots of insignificant professional organizations. Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Most of the sources cited are either unreliable or primary. Worse, many cited sources say nothing about the subject. On the other hand, secondary sources are scarce and I couldn't find anything substantial. Mosesheron (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mosesheron (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mosesheron (talk) 07:39, 22 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 per WP:SK point 3. There is clear consensus that the nomination bears no resemblance to the content of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers[edit]

Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a hoax. Craig Jones wears women's underwear. Etc... (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 03:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 22 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twice: Seize the Light[edit]

Twice: Seize the Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary does not meet WP:GNG- references consists of WP:ROUTINE announcements. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, Billboard is a very reliable source and the Cosmopolitan is a reliable source for uncontroversial topics like film reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:03, 22 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 Gore Vidal#Fiction. Consensus to not keep. Information about his relationship with Vidal can be merged from the history if deemed relevant. Sandstein 22:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Trimble III[edit]

AfDs for this article:
James Trimble III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Not a notable soldier or person, he's only really known for his association with Gore Vidal, which could easily be a merge or redirect target. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kges1901 (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Kges1901 (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettlerhello • contribs 02:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettlerhello • contribs 19:55, 23 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 01:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José António Falcão[edit]

José António Falcão (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promotion, without encyclopedic relevance.--Rtws123 (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:José António Falcão--Rtws123 (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:53, 22 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 Draft:Seneca mission. Consensus arrived at. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seneca Mission Indian Church Grounds Desecration[edit]

Seneca Mission Indian Church Grounds Desecration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay on local history, based on original research, with a strong point of view. I can find no reliable sources describing the alleged desecration as such. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is primary too, but it's the kind of sourcing that we just sometimes have to live with. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 22 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. Closing per WP:SNOW and WP:EARLY. Nominating rationale is not based on any recognizable standard under the deletion process guidelines and there are no supporting !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brantham TMD[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brantham TMD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a proposed depot, that was cancelled before construction commenced. The rolling stock it was intended to be the home depot for is being maintained an existing depot that have been expanded to accommodate.[33][34] Yumosumo (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 22 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. (non-admin closure) ChipotleHater (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Goodman (police officer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eugene Goodman (police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:1E and WP:BLP1E, he is only notable for one event. I would also consider merging with 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Most of the national/international attention he has gotten has gone away, further proving the point that he is only notable for one event. I really think this article would be much more appropriate on the main article. ChipotleHater (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ChipotleHater (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ChipotleHater (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman: This new AfD was opened 32 hours after you closed the prior AfD as a consensus to "Keep". Is this new AfD even procedurally valid? Cbl62 (talk) 00:35, 22 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.
  1. ^ a b "Japan Patent Office - Patent JP,2017-515252,A".
  2. ^ "HuffPost Reggie Middleton Contributions".
  3. ^ "Going Short by Daniel Fisher, Forbes".
  4. ^ "Middleton Says U.S. Housing Market `Still in Downfall'".
  5. ^ "VPRO Documentary - The Power of Credit Rating Agencies".
  6. ^ "VPRO Documentary - Debt and Redemption".
  7. ^ "CNBC".
  8. ^ "CNBC".
  9. ^ "CNBC".
  10. ^ "RT Keiser Report".
  11. ^ "RT Keiser Report".
  12. ^ "RT Keiser Report".
  13. ^ "RT Keiser Report".
  14. ^ "RT Keiser Report".
More