< January 26	January 28 >

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NIIVA[edit]

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

Non notable singer who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER neither does she possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her. A before search turned up non notable sources such as this which lacks editorial oversight & interviews such as this which aren’t considered reliable since they aren’t independent of her. Celestina007 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Coreykai (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Musicians are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because they exist — we're an encyclopedia, not a free public relations platform, and the inclusion bar for musicians as spelled out at WP:NMUSIC requires quantifiable and reliably sourceable accomplishments, not just verification of existence. But the article states nothing about NIIVA that passes any of NMUSIC's criteria, and it's referenced overwhelmingly to primary sources and blogs, which are not support for notability. Out of 15 footnotes here, the only one that's actually starting to get anywhere is #2 (Global News) — but it takes a lot more than just one hit of coverage in real media to deem a person as passing WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass the actual inclusion criteria for their occupation. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not yet notable as the sourcing that is independent lacks the appropriate level of depth, also no evidence of charting or being nominated for any accolades that would make her notable Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone voted "delete". 2001:569:74D2:A800:6910:9F64:720F:E080 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not notable. --Kemalcan (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC demands Jenyire2 07:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Lack of coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Ashleyyoursmile! 08:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. SwashWafer (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citinite[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; there is a distinct lack of sources addressing Citinite directly and in depth. All the references in the article are name checks apart from this one, which is still insufficient. I have searched ProQuest, Google News and Google Books and not found anything close to satisfying NCORP. Normal search engine results are just the usual Soundcloud, Twitter, Discogs, Myspace etc. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC JSFarman (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt meet WP:BAND. Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. SwashWafer (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rhondite[edit]

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

Work of a single author. Possibly a hoax. No coverage, apart from single mention. scope_creep^Talk 21:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, is some kind of a trademarked steel which has two extremely minor mentions from the 90s and one report by Oak Ridge National Laboratory [1], but simply not a notable compound – Thjarkur (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, As per above. Setreis (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't warrant it's own article - would be a comment in another article at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability standards Jenyire2 07:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult video games[edit]

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

Attempting to encapsulate what is wrong with this list and explain why it should be deleted is difficult. I have personally contributed to this list in the past but stopped because of issues I saw with it. In discussions off-wiki, other editors shared the same concerns I had, which is why I decided to nominate for deletion.

First it's important to understand that for a game to be included on the list, all that is required is for a reliable source to have called it a "cult" game or describe it as having a "cult following", using those exact words. It could be a trivial passing mention, doesn't matter. In practice, as long as the word "cult" is used describing a game, it has been considered fair for inclusion. This has resulted in lots of drive-by edits with people adding their favorite games because it was mentioned somewhere as a cult game.

The issue is: there is no solid definition of what a "cult video game" is, or what it means for a game to have a "cult following". Even the Wikipedia page for cult following doesn't seem to have a convincing definition. I'm not dismissing the claims by reliable sources that these games have cult followings; rather, I am saying that simply having a cult following does not create any meaningful relationship with another game that another source has also claimed to have a cult-following.

Let's look at the variety of games listed. You have games that were:

Unpopular at release but grew a fanbase over time (Sweet Home, Shantae)
Critically divisive (Killer7, God Hand)
Commercially unsuccessful but critically praised (Snatcher, Beyond Good & Evil)
Commercially and critically unsuccessful (Ribbit King, Doshin the Giant)
Commercially and critically successful (yes somehow games like Xenogears, Dark Cloud, Destroy All Humans!, and Pokémon Snap are considered "cult" games by reliable sources)

Per WP:LISTN, a common reason lists are deemed notable is because they are "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". You could argue that sources have published lists like "best cult games" etc. and you would right. This is why I made this long write up, because despite that, the issue remains: Why these games are considered cult games is not clear, so what you end up with is a list that serves no purpose and does not help the reader draw any meaningful conclusions. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Per above, as well as the fact that the word "Cult" can mean very many things. Shrekxy 64. 21:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Despite my comment on the talk page supporting a restructure, the more I look at this page, the more I think it should just be deleted. Tarkus perfectly summed up my thoughts on why I dislike the sources used in just about every one of these entries, so I don't need to really go into it too much. Basically, sources are incredibly loose with what they define as a cult game, and most of the time they never go in-depth as to why they consider it a cult classic, or why that's a general opinion. I imagine users who would want to read a list like this are looking for games that never achieved much success but have a strong following. They are sure as hell not looking for random licensed games like Home Improvement: Power Tool Pursuit, games that are listed on List of video games considered the best, or small/niche franchises. Half of the time I see people edit this page, it's either removing bogus entries or naive editors trying to add passing mentions that go against consensus, which means the page is unstable. This list simply cannot be saved. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The problem is encapsulated here by your use of "I dislike the sources" and "I imagine users". The clear central principle of Wikipedia is that reliable sources determine page content, not individual editor's opinions. If multiple reliable third party sources say a game is "cult" or has "a cult following" then that is a fact as far as Wikipedia is concerned - even if it results in thousands of entries like the cult film lists. This simply smacks of certain editors wanting to delete the page because they personally disagree with the games being added even when there have multiple reliable supporting sources - in the case of Sensible Soccer, of the three sources provided, one was the BBC and a second was subtitled "The Cult of Sensible Soccer". I notice there was absolutely no attempt to delete the page or to remove titles like Capcom's Strider or Bionic Commando which have a single far weaker source, but then those games happen to be favoured by certain editors. MrMajors (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources listed here can be placed on their respective articles so, no real loss if this gets deleted to be honest... Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but support Delete too. On the article's talk page, concurrent to this AFD, we're discussing a set of criterion needed to limit what can be added to this list, which I personally expect would nix 75% of the games on it, which would require far better sourcing since as the above !votes have already noted, its far too easy to find a hit on "cult video game" for many titles but only in passing. This almost would be a WP:TNT situation in that case, hence my support for deletion, but I'd rather see us better defined the inclusion metrics and cull down with impunity than delete outright. --Masem (t) 22:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (And while I would not include it in this AFD, I think we need to use the same critical eye to List of cult films (all 26+ subparts of that). --Masem (t) 22:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: The films list has been up for deletion before (three times, infact). I think there's a big difference between cult film and cult video game., however I don't play video games, so I might be talking out of my ZX81! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others have already said, the real problem here is that there is not a clear, objective definition of "cult." Without that kind of definition, this list is going to continue to be the subject of edit wars and lengthy talk page debates. Efforts at building consensus as to the definition of "cult" have thus far been, I would argue, inconclusive, to say nothing of the fact that other editors who have not participated in those discussions will likely have their own definitions. This is further borne out by the fact that many of the sources use different definitions as well. So, I think it may be time for this list to go away. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phrase "cult following" is so overused by hack writers, and there are so many hack writers 'covering' video games, that the inclusion criteria is completely useless. And worse still, obscure-at-the-time games with fiercely loyal long-term followings like Dwarf Fortress still managed to not make the list. (To be clear : I'm not saying that we could improve the list by adding DF, I'm saying that the inclusion criteria is so meaningless, that even someone familiar with the topic could not predict which games made the list.) ApLundell (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much to add to the discussion. The issue here is that "cult" has no clear definition, which means the general topic of the list is unclear. Why is anything in particular on it "cult"? It becomes a mass list of any video game that any marginally reliable source ever, even once, called "cult", with zero context. Aside from that, LISTN to consider, are they discussed as a group? I found this enlightening, as one of the few sources in use that are a type of "top x cult games" leads with a paragraph talking about "what even is cult? we don't know, everyone has a different view, but here's our top 5 based on what we think it is." -- ferret (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what makes something a cult video game? Who defines what is and what is not such a game. It might be a concept that it is possible to make an article on, but there are not enough fixed, always agreed on definitions to make an actual list of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citing the failed deletion discussions of List of cult films is absolutely not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, they set an obvious precedentt. If List of cult films is sufficiently notable as proven in several discussions, then a list of cult video games is absolutely notable. Both should be nominated as a group if this is to be deleted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Complete disagreement. Different media with different levels of terminology usage and sourcing. That cult films survives does not act as a gate for cult video games to survive. It may be an indicator, but hardly an uncrossable line. -- ferret (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's not like it's used uniformly across all media. To use an extreme example, it's not like you'd use its use in film to justify a List of cult shoes or List of cult wrist watches. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Cult" has been used numerous times in reliable sources to describe games in exactly the same manner as films. I don't think it's an apples and oranges situation. This AfD seems like a WP:LEADER situation with no one truly digging into whether RS mention that video games are cult (they do: Earthbound being prime evidence)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone in this discussion claimed they don't? ApLundell (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that would be a fine rationale if this were a debate on whether or not we should add the label to an individual article like Earthbound. Obviously occurrences of its use exists. (Humorously, I even found a source for my exaggerated watch example.) But this is an industry-spanning list we're debating here, and the problem is, as the nom outlines, that it's not used commonly or uniformly in definition in this industry. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the well-rationed nom and Masem's comments regarding WP:TNT. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the above. "cult" is such a nebulous term that it's completely useless. Nigej (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem that I see is that the term "cult video game" is not well defined in reliable sources, thus making it impossible to provide an inclusion criteria that satisfies our list policies. There have been some noble attempts to define a set of criteria on the article talk page, but at the end of the day it is original research. This is markedly different from the "cult film" concept long defined in reliable sources. Indrian (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few days ago you were adamant that there was a "classic definition" which you were using to justify removing titles from the list. MrMajors (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As relates to film, sure. It's the best we have to go on for games, but it's not a perfect fit. Try not to take this so personally. Indrian (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Haven't yet seen an authoritative source on what entails a cult video game, leaving the list ill-defined. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't create until the scope has been better described by WP:RS. NavjotSR (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Poorly defined/scoped, much unlike cult film. IceWelder [✉] 20:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these lists based on subjective qualities undermine the WP:NPOV of our encyclopedia. I'm sure that you can find a source or two that will say a game is any number of subjective qualities, including "cult". But synthesizing them to together into a list is misleading. At best, it will represent the viewpoint of several individual journalists on several different articles, and that's assuming they use the word "cult" in the same sense". It ultimately becomes filtered through the point of view of the editor who noticed it and hopes to make it seem more objective than it actually is. If we're going to make lists of games, they should be based around qualities that journalists widely agree upon. Things like platform, year, or genre. Jontesta (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Cult" is too subjective to be used in a list. Every fictional work has been called a "cult work" at least once. As noted above, there are even examples of "cult watches". Furthermore, "cult" means different things to different people. How can we maintain a list that relies on several different definitions of its defining term? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but open to re-creation: I think that "cult video games" is a potentially valid topic, but there's no denying that the sources are all over the board over what constitutes "cult", which makes the page a terrible smorgasbord— in fact I raised similar concerns on the Talk page last year. I applaud Masem's attempts to whip it into shape but I find myself agreeing that a long-term solution requires some TNT. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep/Draftify. Fundametnally this list just needs far better sourcing requirements. Instead of one off hand mention that a game has a "cult following". Instead have 5 RSs be needed in order for it be considered "cult" or 1/2 in-depth articles about how the game has a cult following. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 04:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we apply that idea to this list, where each game would require 5 reliable, in-depth, independent sources that discuss its cult status at length, then that would cut out around 96% of the games listed here. Therefore, the list would just be deleted anyway for being way too short to even justify existing. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 04:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I see your point, but the sourcing I suggested would be less stringenet than 5 in-depth RS, rather either 1 or 2 in-depth RSs discusiing the "cult" following or 5 mentions in RSs that it has a cult following. Though that is no perfect sourcing requirement I think that could strike the balance of not having too many meaningless entries whilst also having enough to sustain a meaningful list. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 10:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but allow draftification per Kawnhr. Agree with nom that, unlike movie journalism, simply relying on "a journalist source somewhere used the word cult" is not going to work considering how loosely the term is tossed around. I think that a recreation might be possible though, albeit with permanent semi-protection and a rigorous lockdown on random editors adding their own favorite games to this list. A recreated list would be shorter and use some additional criteria (even if the result was having to rename the list slightly) to get to some more strictly defined idea - obscure games (not a mainstream success) that retained a notable devoted fanbase (not just "somebody somewhere liked it", which is true of nearly every game). Stuff like Snatcher or Cho Aniki, not Xenogears. And maybe a separate section if need be for stuff like Earthbound, which might have been a cult game once but eventually got mainstream recognition thanks to Smash Bros. and the like. SnowFire (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neuralia, California[edit]

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

Yet another passing siding in the desert with nothing around. I don't know why GNIS sourced it to a large scale map, but it shows up quite clearly on the topos. Searching brings up the inevitable (for a rail spot) "Decisions of the Railroad Commission of California" and some reference to a soil, but nothing else. Not a notable spot. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search of JSTOR, Google Scholar, and GEOREF found many of the same items that Mangoe found, including the Neuralia Road in nearby California City, California and the Neuralia soil series. Nothing indicative either of a populated place / settlement; something notable enough to be included in Wikipedia; or combination of these was found although there are plenty of desert tortises, rattlesnakes, and Typic Haplargids. It is revealing that one report, Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the proposed Recurrent Energy Cinco Solar facility Project, Kern county, California by Stephanie Jow and Theodore G. Cooley (AECOM), 2014, considers a "...historic dirt road that extends from the Southern Pacific Railroad Railway at Neuralia into the Sierra Mountain Range..." to be a histroic archaeological site (CS-S-H-028, pages 56 and 64-65) and totally ignores Neuralia. Paul H. (talk) 02:03, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piute, California[edit]

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

Yet another "GNIS sourced from a large-scale map" case so you know it's going to be good. Durham, I have to assume, mentions this in some way that doesn't indicate it was a settlement, but in any case the topos and the aerials show nothing whatsoever except a intermittent stream on the former. On GMaps the spot is part of a more or less undifferentiated rocky desert scrub hillside. This is a big verification failure. Mangoe (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Location has no notability whatsoever, being a simple place on a map.TH1980 (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is one of those really tiny empty places where there is only a post station. There is nothing related to this article, and I could not find any significant coverage. GNIS constantly confuses post offices to be the names of cities, but this is just a post office in the middle of a desert. There is nothing notable about it. Koridas 📣 19:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above, No significant importance. SwashWafer (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. More sources required Jenyire2 07:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep by overwhelming consensus. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LGB Alliance[edit]

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

Too many WP:NPOV issues plagued this article and it was WP:DRAFTified. This is a duplicate of the draft article. Elizium23 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate in draftspace, not ready for mainspace. Oh wait, that already happened: Draft:LGB Alliance. What's this for then? A circumvention of process regardless of intention. Delete this. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are a very large number of reliable sources available on the topic to expand the article including multiple articles from The Guardian, Pink News, BBC News, The Independent, The Telegraph, Attitude and single articles from The Herald, Polygon,The Scottish Parliament and Loughborough University. See a full list on the article talk page. --Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Please explain why the problems with Draft:LGB Alliance are being attributed to this article? It has no shared text and none of the source verification problems. Battleofalma (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the problem with the previous article (moved to Draft) is maintaining NPOV, but the current article (in spite of the gratuitous tag) complies with NPOV and MOS standards. It must continue to do so, but in any event AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a problem though. If we keep this article and keep the draft then we have two, competing articles on identical topics. Which one do I edit? Which one do I watchlist? How does a draftspace article have any hope of being accepted into mainspace if there's already a competing article there? There can be only one. Elizium23 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The policy-complant course, after the AfD is over, would be to Merge the page histories and the Talk histories (unless the result here is Delete, of course). Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Newimpartial, the honorable thing to do would be for the creator to merge this one into the draft, regardless of AFD status, and CSD the mainspace article so that we can continue the draft incubation as planned. Elizium23 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - When the article was not NPOV,-compliant, there was a reason for draftification. This is not true of the current article, however. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        This doesn't seem complicated. Delete the non-compliant draft. I'm not sure the creator would oppose. Battleofalma (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not complicated at all. Happens frequently. That isn't a valid reason to argue for deletion. --Kbabej (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is nothing more than a copy of the Draft that was rejected by multiple editors for being an overtly biased and politicised attempt to call LGB Alliance a "hate group" because a particular group of editors dislikes them. It is in no way encyclopedic and should not be on Wikipedia. There appears to be yet a third version of this same biased Draft still being worked on by the original creator (who wrote in their bio that they created their anonymous account ~~purely~~ to work on articles on "hate groups") in their Sandbox. Wikipedia is not for personal vendettas against organizations we disagree with. This should be deleted immediately. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nowhere in the body of the article is the LGB Alliance referred to as a "hate group", so you've actually made up part of the article to describe as politicised. Suggest you reconsider your reasoning for supporting deletion. Battleofalma (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was clearly a reference to the original creator having written this after declaring that their anonymous account was created specifically to work on articles about "hate groups". This article is just as biased and un-encyclopedic as it was when it was rejected previously. There is no attempt at fair coverage and the heavy use of very biased sources such as Pink News has continued. This is a hit piece and nothing more, and a blatant attempt to skirt the process by which it was already rejected. Delete. Lilipo25 (talk)
    - I would encourage you to look at WP:RSP where Pink News has been listed as "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise". By describing Pink News as "very biased sources", I think that is showing you are not looking at the sources objectively. --Kbabej (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Pink News has a warning on it that caution should be used in relying on it as a source in that listing. It is not an objective source (and was listed as an unreliable source not fit for Wikipedia at all just last year, before those who wanted to use it for exactly this sort of bias immediately re-opened a new RFC because they didn't like the results of the first one and screamed down all objections.Heck, Pink News' editor-in-chief himself took part to insist it should be used as a Wikipedia source, and how that was permitted I'll never understand). Lilipo25 (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        That is water under the bridge. It's obviously listed as a green-listed source now, and your dredging up old RFCs isn't relevant to this discussion except showing you aren't prepared to accept community consensus at RFC. Characterizing arguments other editors make as "screaming" isn't helpful. --Kbabej (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right - I should have said WP:Bludgeoning. A particular group suddenly all appears together and attacks anyone who disagrees that Pink News' horribly biased attack pieces are a reliable source and then just won't let up until they've chased all dissenting opinions away. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim "created their anonymous account purely to work on articles on 'hate groups'" is false and I invite User:Lilipo25 to strike both versions of it; what is actually written on the user's page is "to write articles about hate groups, racism, conspiracy theories and other difficult subjects that would be very difficult with my other account which has quite a lot of personal information." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will remove the word "purely" and nothing else. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way User:Pigsonthewing, your quote is in fact NOT what the creator's bio said when they created the biased article at all - most of that was added after receiving criticism for creating what appeared to several people to be an anonymous WP:SPA in order to use Wikipedia to attack LGB Alliance. At the time, their bio said only "Hallo, I've been editing Wikipedia for around 10 years, I've created this second anonymous account for privacy to write articles about hate groups and other difficult subjects.". Lilipo25 (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You made your false claims on 27 January; the wording I cite was added on 16 January. And even the old, pre-16 January, wording which you now quote does not support your false claims - one of which you have still not struck. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - My "claim" was that the author had stated they created their account to write about 'hate groups' when they created the original article, which this article copies from. That article was created on 15 January and heavily criticized on 16 January for being the work of an SPA, which is when they added the extra wording. Now you have made a false claim about me, twice, by misrepresenting what I said, and I would appreciate it i you would stop doing so. Lilipo25 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Your original claim, which I have already quoted verbatim, was "created their anonymous account purely to work on articles on 'hate groups'" (diff 1); once I pointed out that that was false, you struck one word from it, but you did not strike your other, also false, claim, which was that the "anonymous account was created specifically to work on articles about 'hate groups'" (diff 2). Both of those claims were signed, by you, on this page, on 27 January. None of my statements are false, neither have I misrepresented what you said, and all the evidence is logged in the history of this and other pages, where anyone may review it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        And yet again, you have deliberately misrepresented what I said, after I asked you to stop, by cutting off the part of the sentence which shows you were wrong while quoting me. Despicable behavior. The full quote is the original creator, who wrote in their bio that they created their anonymous account to work on articles on "hate groups", which they did. Those were their own words. You cut off the part where I said they wrote that in their bio when quoting me to make it sound like my opinion. Stop.
        It is telling that those of us who vote against these Pink News hit pieces on feminist or lesbian groups/figures never seem to feel the need to pile onto the votes of those who vote 'keep', but instead concentrate on giving our own votes, while those who work to keep Wikipedia as biased as possible against all feminist and lesbian subjects never fail to do the opposite. Every time.Lilipo25 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Very well; your original claims, in full, were "There appears to be yet a third version of this same biased Draft still being worked on by the original creator (who wrote in their bio that they created their anonymous account purely to work on articles on "hate groups") in their Sandbox." and "That was clearly a reference to the original creator having written this after declaring that their anonymous account was created specifically to work on articles about "hate groups"." (diffs as above). I note that you have omitted the word "purely" in your latest attempt to deny the former; and "specifically " from your attempt to deny the latter, neither of which are, as you claim "the full quote"; it is not me who has "deliberately misrepresented" what you said. Both claims remain false. You have still stuck only one word from one, and none of the second. The evidence remains in the history for all to see.
        As for your fatuous comment about "the need to pile onto the votes...", I have said nothing about your views on the article, or the sources; I have not called on others to discount your comments, nor attempted to change your mind; I have simply addressed only your egregious and unacceptable misrepresentation of a fellow editor. Your further, and snide, allusion to "those who work to keep Wikipedia as biased as possible against all feminist and lesbian subjects" is also utterly unacceptable in this context. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You can keep repeating that I have "still only struck one word from the first and none from the second" from now until next month, and it still won't happen. Because I told you from the start that is ALL I would remove, since the rest of it is completely accurate. And I really don't care how many times you order me to do otherwise. It's not happening. (By the way, you lied again - I didn't even quote "the latter" so I couldn't have "omitted 'specifically' from it" as you falsely claim. I omitted 'purely' from the one quote I DID make because it is struck out. I am growing inclined, however, to put it back since you won't stop carrying on about it). I didn't "egregiously misrepresent" your "fellow editor", either - they ARE a single-purpose anonymous account created to depict groups with which they personally disagree in a negative light, and they don't even have the courage to do it with their own account. Their original draft was one of the most outrageously un-encyclopedic, biased, vicious attacks on a subject I have ever seen anyone attempt to slip onto Wikipedia, and anyone who has been editing for "ten years" as they claim would know that it violated every rule in the Wikipedia handbook. Your personal affront at the slight to their honor is, frankly, peculiar. Now try concentrating on your OWN opinion of the article and stop spending all your time carrying on about mine.Lilipo25 (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that there is zero attempt in the article to use balanced sources. The author has used only those which are heavily critical of LGB Alliance's views and completely omitted numerous articles (from far less biased sources than Pink News) which depict the organization and its work in either a favorable or neutral light. Omitting one point of view is not in any way adhering to NPOV, as some users are claiming here.

There have been articles defending LGB Alliance and denying that it is a hate group, or discussing its POV and campaigns (as well as the criticism of it) in reliable sources like The Spectator (The Disgraceful Crusade Against the LGB Alliance [2]), The Guardian (Before We Hurl Insults Around About 'Transphobes', Let's Be Clear About What We Mean [3], Spiked (The Trans War on Same-Sex Attraction [4] and The Woke War on Lesbians [5]) and The Times ('Anti-women trans policy may split Stonewall [6], Trans People are Real, But So Is Biology [7] and Stonewall Has Lost Its Way On the Trans Issue [8]), just for starters. Yet none of them have been used here. Surely the author found these articles when googling for sources, but everything that isn't critical of the LGB Alliance is left out. Instead, the sources include such articles as Pink News' LGB Alliance Co-Founder Displays Basic Ignorance About HIV Prevention Drug PrEP. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources that have been added since this was nominated for deletion are irrelevant and I have no issue with that particular Pink News supported addition being reverted. However, with regard to your suggestions for balance, I seriously doubt Spiked's reliability as a source and the Spectator is a 'marginally reliable' newsblog that has notably published pieces like ‘In praise of the Wehrmacht' and articles defending the Greek fascist party (and now proscribed criminal organisation), Golden Dawn. If you think the other opinion pieces stand up to scrutiny then by all means expand with a defence of LGB Alliance rather than pursue deletion. Battleofalma (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spiked has never been judged an unreliable source by Wikipedia. The Spectator is the oldest political magazine in the world and whether or not you agree with other articles they have printed is completely irrelevant.Lilipo25 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Spiked has had some limited discussion in various places here, here and here and from what I can see it's not coming out as something to give much weight to often because of the quality of its contributors and its self-published elements. And indeed I do not agree with those examples of what the Spectator prints but RS also concludes that it not very reliable so it's not just my anti-fascist hysteria at play here. Battleofalma (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The opinions of individual editors are also irrelevant. If we're going to disqualify sources based on some editors disagreeing with their use, we would most definitely have to get rid of all use of Pink News. If you wish Spiked to be dismissed as an unreliable source, you need to open a discussion of it on the Reliable Sources page. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well cited and constructed, neutral article of a controversial group - no mean feat. An important topic to be retained also. Smirkybec (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not cleanup, and the original should never have been draftified. A history merge should be undertaken, and much of the content from the original should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per a WP:BEFORE, there are many, many sources available. Sources include the Telegraph, Pink News, Pink News (again), Out, Icelandic Review, Out in Perth, Quillette, Dazed Digital, etc. The list goes on. And every one of those articles is from a notable publication, not Reddit or random blogs. AfD is not cleanup. --Kbabej (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quillette is rarely a good source—see WP:RSP. — Bilorv (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Yes, I know that I said that I didn't think that this was a good idea over on Draft talk:LGB Alliance but this version of the article is (at the time of writing) way better than the various revisions I saw of the draft (not that I looked at them all) and I'm tentatively changing my mind. The article does a good job of presenting the subject in a neutral manner, neither credulously accepting their claims to be a genuine lesbian, gay, and bisexual advocacy organisation nor stating or implying that they are not. My only concern is that the short section on "Women Make Glasgow" is off-topic and not even supported by the reference given. (I am not even sure what "Women Make Glasgow" actually is, apart from a Twitter account, anyway.) Oh, and also that we can expect a lot of POV editing here to the extent where I'd almost be inclined to suggest permanent semi-protection from the very outset. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I sympathise with the people who are unhappy that the article was created in a way that bypassed the existing draft but the author has never edited that draft, and may not even have realised that it existed, so there is absolutely no reason to suspect that this was done deliberately to game the system. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Present version is well-sourced and cautiously worded. That there are other unused sources which mention the article subject is not an argument to delete: quite the opposite. Arguments for deletion on the basis of what they speculate the author's intentions to be, or what they speculate the intentions of other commenters to be, violate Assume Good Faith. Objections about text that was in a previous draft but not in the article we're discussing are irrelevant. Arguments about the past consensus about the reliability of PinkNews somehow overriding the present consensus are just bizarre. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with the comments of User:Smirkybec. Lirazelf (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all above. Setreis (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Obviously notable; it doesn't matter if you like it or not. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re-draftify pending source analysis, or weak keep at best. Since this was already rejected as a draft, it perhaps should go back to that state. The fact that someone can dump a bunch of Google hits on the talk page doesn't mean we have in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources; it means we have lots of at least passing mentions, until source analysis shows depth. I think it's likely this will turn out notable, given the volume of mentions. Regardless, some of the articles on groups like this are strong WP:TNT candidates because they are written by opponents and are too one-sided to do much with. (See, e.g., my comments at Talk:Women's Liberation Front, a group that seems even less likely to be notable, and which has been treated even less neutrally. Disagreeing with the viewpoint does not give us license to do a hatchet job, this being Wikipedia not Facebook.) PS: I agree with DanielRigal about the off-topic WMG material. And I'm concerned that a recently arrived editor who seems to know an awful lot about process and policy is already hot to label various BLPs as "members" of this group (we don't even know if they have any such thing as a membership structure). I think the disruption potential, especially PoV-pushing against living subjects, is very high here. If this is kept, it will need watchlisters, and people checking "What links here". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the previous version of this article was not rejected as a draft, it was draftified BOLDly (but quite plausibly) because it didn't follow NPOV requirements, and editors were starting to WP:EW about it. None of these factors apply to the current article that this AdD is about, so I don't see a policy-compliant argument to draftify this one as well. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SMcCandlish, thanks for your comment. I wrote the article unrelated to the draftified version and I tried hard to keep it from being a "hatchet job" I thought I'd stick to the most solid sources to begin with and just try and get the basic facts that
The LGB Alliance exists, it claims to support LGB people

A lot of LGBT organisations claim it is transphobic
I even specifically refrained from using the term "hate group" even though reliable sources support its inclusion. The problem is, the significant coverage that makes LGB Alliance notable is because it is considered as a hate group by so many people, and this just can't be drafted away. An article about something widely condemned will tend to look critical in tone. Battleofalma (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some meta-analysis: It's important to look at the sources of the condemnations. The Guardian or whatever quoting a trans activism group calling an LGB-focused activism organization a "hate group" isn't The Guardian doing in-depth secondary research and concluding that the latter is in fact a hate group; it's simply "controversy reporting", repeating the primary-source viewpoint of party A who is in a fight with party B (within the left, within LGBT+ activism). I see this problem running through a lot of these articles. It's the fallacy that everything ever appearing in a publication that is often a secondary source for some kinds of claims is necessarily secondary source material for everything. I recognize that this version is better than the last one, but I find it a bit disturbing that it is dominated by one sort of sourcing, and someone has firehosed a whole bunch more of the same kind of news site stuff (quoting all the same usual-suspect "opposed activism camp" talking heads) onto the talk page. This looks still half-baked to me, which is why I think it belongs back in the draftspace oven. And that's even assuming any of this material qualifies as in-depth, secondary, and independent enough for GNG. I think it's probable that it will, but this AfD is unusually characterized by "must be notable because it's been mentioned a lot" thinking, and devoid of detailed source analysis.
Honestly, I think it would be of more encyclopedic value to have a broad article on the nature of this socio-political dispute and work into it all the viewpoints of all the major players in it, instead of trying to fork off mini-articles on every little group and alleged group who've ever been quoted. What's happening now is re-re-reiteration of the entire fight, within each of these stubs. This is predictably, necessarily going to result in WP:POVFORKing and a lot of unnecessary drama. This has been better handled in, say, the current US politics area, where we are not generating a constant stream of mini-articles on every "militia" club and ranty webboard and self-declared "group", but covering them WP:DULY at broader articles on MAGA/Trumpism, the Capitol insurrection, etc. It's a more productive and practical approach. The fact that we might be able to squeak an article in under a generous interpretation of GNG doesn't necessarily make it the best idea. This will become more acutely obvious over time as the Web and social media especially make it possible to create new anonymous/pseudonymous "groups" on the fly, of people with no relevant credentials, yet without appreciably affecting the topic area from an actually encyclopedic perspective.
This isn't even really a new issue, just an exacerbated one. Back when I was a professional activist, before the social media explosion, it amused me that major newspapers would call up and quote various "organizations" for their viewpoints on policy news when I knew personally that the "group" being quoted was two guys working out of their bedrooms in their spare time away from their day jobs, or was a gaggle of students at a university, who were just good at making an important-looking website. This hasn't changed in any way other than gotten more common instead of being unusual. Being good at getting journalists to call you back or quote your tweets does not a subject-matter expert make. A news source uncritically quoting a well-spoken nobody isn't secondary sourcing; it's no different from regurgitation of press releases.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the current article doesn't assert that The Guardian applied any particular labels to the group; it only notes what has been reported in The Guardian, The Independent, etc., concerning the views expressed by others. This type of reporting is manifestly DUE, and (in this instance) reliably sourced.

Also, there is no incompatibility between having articles on organizations like the LGB Alliance and Stonewall (charity) and also having synthetic, source-based articles on topics. However, based on the editing history of Feminist views on transgender topics, I am not convinced that articles following the latter approach produce content that is more helpful to our readers. They are certainly more difficult to write and to edit, IME. Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sources could be more in-depth and a dedicated piece about LGB Alliance itself would be good, but they are strong enough in concert to confer notability. Ff we're really doubting that I can add some pieces from the Herald Scotland (which I've just learned is the longest national newspaper in the world) and The Scotsman. Battleofalma (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability. Guardian, Telegraph, BBC are all major publications.Webmaster862 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned or quoted by such sources is not our criterion. Being the subject in them of in-depth, independent coverage is. So which Guardian, Telegraph, or BBC News cites qualify, and why? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources cited in the article are news stories about the LGB alliance and its activities, and all are independent of the organization itself, so I fail to see any issues with the depth or the independence of the coverage. The TL;DR of the "depth" requirement is to exclude passing mentions and regurgitated press releases, and I don't see any of either in the article's references. Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: bad procedurally to create this over a version that was draftified, yes, but that draft was probably better TNT'd anyway. PinkNews is not great for notability even in this amount of coverage, but The Scotsman, The Telegraph and The Independent all have non-trivial coverage. I wouldn't oppose a "multiple-way merge" (not sure if there's a better term) where each event being covered is incorporated into other articles and then this article is deleted e.g. Criticism of the BBC#Transphobia (not saying that section/article is in good shape...). If it's to stay then They have been described by LGBT organizations ... is a terrible case of opinions not being specifically and properly attributed. — Bilorv (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The POV of the article could be improved, but the article is definitely notable enough for inclusion. X-Editor (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not history-merge if at all possible; the article does not have the egregious WP:V and WP:BLP issues that caused me to draft-ify (and eventually stub-ify) the previous article. Coverage in the Telegraph, the Independent, etc. is enough for GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bartholomew (cricketer)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer who fails to meet either NCRIC or GNG.

Did not play first-class cricket and very little else is known about him. No CricInfo profile (although there is a Robert Bartholomew who played once for MCC in 1872); his CricketArchive page refers to him as R Bartholomew and has him playing in three matches in 1750.

Ashley-Cooper (source can be found here - uses Flash; try searching) says that he ran the White Conduit tavern but "whose name, however, is not found in many matches of note" (p.67) and more or less repeats this in his three line biography which also tells us he died in 1766 (p.83). His name appears on three scorecards on p.68 but I can find no mention of him in other sources that deal with early cricket.

Buckley repeats Ashley-Cooper and the entire final paragraph of the article it speculation at best (the "it is not known..." bit gives it away - this is the usual attempt to link people with the same name that seems to have taken the author's fancy). The source for this paragraph is self-published, often unreliable and full of speculation like this.

So, we have three matches and a very brief biography that tells us he ran a pub. That's it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this similar to a batch of cricketers from the 1700s that were put up for deletion before? IIRC, the first-class status of those cricketers/matches was also in disupte. If this guy is in the same boat as those others, then delete. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: I'm not sure. I nomed this and this in December, which are similar, but I don't tend to do large numbers at a time. No FC cricket was played pre-1773, so there's no doubt about the status. I would have PRODed it, but PRODs get routinely removed on articles like this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the example I was thinking of (might not have been the EXACT person), but a similar scenario. So yes to be clear, delete per your previous rationale and the one above. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Speculation removed (the article was originally about all the Bartholomews before being moved, but there seems to be no verifiable connection). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be enough to warrant mention in a list of Surrey cricketers, but there's entirely insufficient WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing near anything even approaching significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olivér Fenyvesi[edit]

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

His 3 mins of professional football might give a presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL but my WP:BEFORE search found nothing that could contribute towards WP:GNG. He has spent almost all of his career playing in the amateur third tier. During a Hungarian search, I found this to be the best source, which is way short of the mark. There is strong consensus that failing GNG is far more important than a trivial NFOOTBALL pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failing GNG is far more crucial than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time we stopped being footballpedia and started applying the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in GNG. Setreis (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the notability standards yet Jenyire2 07:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Austin (cricketer)[edit]

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

One of many cricket articles that fail WP:GNG big time. After four other AfDs on cricket players I started ended all in "redirect" (1 2 3), 4), I redirected some other articles with the same lack of individual notability. This was reverted for being "pointy disruption" by the article creator. So I'll nominate them for AfD instead, with no objection from my side to either deletion or redirection. I nominate them individually, as it may turn out that, despite my searches for sources, some of these can be shown to be actually notable. Fram (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NCRIC. The nom made a recent failed RfC to remove the said notability requirements. Since then, they have tried to circumnavigate this by making mass redirects instead. The nom has said that they "have no beef with Lugnuts", however following their failed RfC, have seemingly gone out of their way to target artciles I've worked on. Another RfC on sporting articles closed with the comments "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". And yet, there have been 25+ AfDs logged by Fram in a 15/20 minute window, indicating no WP:BEFORE was used. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For my reply, see here. Fram (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no qualms in creating them, as they meet the notability criteria, which you tried and failed to get rid of. And this is the issue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. Nominator didn't do a WP:BEFORE to show the opposite. The nominator nominated (automatically) a large amount of cricketeers. It would have been better to made a bunch of them in one nomination. As seen above, the nominator is not willing the write a reply at everey AfD. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You have posted the same incorrect claims about me (which are not relevant to keeping or deleting this article anyway) at all these AfDs. I hope you will be kind enough to take into account my answer at one of them[9] and correct all your statements accordingly. Fram (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has played in 9 first-class matches, so meets WP:CRIN. Probably other sources in NZ avaliable for him as well. StickyWicket (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep passes WP:NCRIC and he took a fifer in his first-class career. Störm (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator 112 of the last 120 edits Johnpacklambert made on January 19th are delete votes in AFD. I don't think they should be considered not-votes. They re-use the same handful of justifications, which I think makes them actual votes, not not-votes. Geo Swan (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Geo Swan, the same could be said of the keep !votes. It seems to be okay to go Ctrl-C Ctrl-V when it's a personal attack prefaced by the word "keep". But similarly-styled delete !votes on vacuous microstubs all suffering from the same problems? Very forbidden. Reyk _YO! 12:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - My thouths exactly. There is a clear animus towards those of us who actual want to apply the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, you've made this assertion in many other AFD. IF special purpose notability guidelines didn't supercede GNG, for the narrow classes of BLP articles where they applied, there would be absolutely zero point in having them. Geo Swan (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Lambert would like to revist the article following the expansion. I wonder what WP:BEFORE work Lambert did before adding his standard boiler-plate !DELETE vote to every single AfD he's ever commented on. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NCRIC. Geo Swan (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete to List of Otago representative cricketers. Death not in Wisden 1942 so not notable enough for own page.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers which is an established alternative to deletion and provides an opportunity to recover the text of this article should sources be found which mean that the chap can be shown to pass the GNG. Trivial pass of NCRIC has been established at multiple AfD as not sufficient to show that sources will exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus is a very weak and unreliable guideline, but fails all meaningful criteria due to apparent lack of substantial coverage in non-database sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fram has proven consistently unaware or just plain not caring of sports guidelines. He played at the highest domestic level, and I'm sure we could find some coverage somewhere. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's an entire page of newspaper sources covering the man from New Zealand newspapers. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I even found his obituary. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your "entire page" contains many sources not about this person, but e.g. about "a little boy named Austin" or something like this, and is thus worthless in itself. The sources you added to the article equally indicate the lack of importance for these "highest level" events: this one explicitly notes that only a few hundred people watched the game. Fram (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I get the "consistently unaware" personal comment you felt you needed to make here for your keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franzen (cyclist) was about one or more articles you created and which got deleted at AfD. What is it with all the grudge-bearing and revenge-seeking editors nowadays? Fram (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"What is it with all the grudge-bearing and revenge-seeking editors nowadays?" Haha, very good! When the pandemic is over, I must get on the next Eurostar to see your stand-up tour. I have a good friend in Belgium, so hopefully you can get them on the guest-list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't need restating at every AFD, but incidental mentions in team/squad announcements, scorecards and match reports do (almost) nothing to establish notability for the individuals involved, per WP:SPORTCRIT. The obituary is a substantial source, but it stands alone. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you say a whole page of sources, very few of them seem to actually be about the chap we have here (there are a variety of Mr Austin's - a lawyer, an engineers, someone working in the dairy industry, a trainer for a walker - some of those might be our man, but I don't think so; he's certainly not the chap in court for stealing something). There are a couple of cricket reports with passing references, but other than the obituary - which is an excellent find - I think we'd be struggling to find anything of real substance out of these. The obit moves this closer to a keep, but I think it would be a weak keep at best. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a second obituary, however it seems to be more or less a reproduction of the first. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable early Otago cricket and rugby representative. Meets WP:NCRIC having played nine first-class matches for Otago over 12 seasons, and remembered as a fine all-rounder in newspaper reports in the 1940s, over 50 years after he finished playing. Also played five rugby matches for Otago in the early days of interprovincial rugby, and was one of the pioneer orchardists in the Tasman area, which would go on to become one of the main apple-growing areas of New Zealand. Paora (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers or just Delete; the only suitable page for ordinary team members with no notable responsibility. A few newspaper mentions would otherwise qualify about 8-10 million more people for WP articles.--Muirofsara (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: @Muirofsara: He captained the Otago team in a first-class match in 1885/86. Paora (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The bio, in its current form (30 Jan), demonstrates that he was notable beyond just cricket; GNG has been shown. Schwede 66 19:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The obituaries clearly provide the coverage required to establish notability under WP:GNG, which has absolutely nothing to do with importance or distinction. Even if Austin failed WP:NCRIC, which he does not, that policy is *only* relevant where a subject does not have GNG notability. I find it amazing that Fram should be redirecting articles without going through the AfD process first. That no doubt over-rides the good practice of notifying the creator. If we were dealing with a print encyclopaedia, some deletionism would be needed, but we are not, and it is now the greatest handicap WP suffers from. Moonraker (talk) 18:05, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Families in King James II's Irish Army[edit]

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

WP:PLOT, fails WP:SALAT as it's way too specific and generally little value as it is, relies only on one source. Just not sure if it merits being kept up in its current form. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. No. Just delete this. Either this is WP:OR or it's a copy of a primary source, but there is just no way this is encyclopedic. Even as source material I have to doubt its value. Mangoe (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I can see no plausible justification for a list such as this, and am certainly not seeing GNG as met. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: totally WP:INDISCRIMINATE ww2censor (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SALAT, indiscriminate and unencyclopaedic. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate information. This is a copy of the index to a book, without the page numbers. It's not clear to me that all the names in this list represent members of King James's army; some of the persons in the index could have been mentioned in the book because they were on the opposite side of the war. Also, it appears that one and a half pages of the index were mis-scanned on Archive.org, so that almost all the names between "Morrow" and "Taylor" are missing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above fails WP:SALAT. Setreis (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the most indiscriminate list I have seen. What next List of all American soldiers who served in World War II. That would only be a little more indiscriminate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, this total piece of junk survived 5 years? I do not believe that. Even if the article on Barahir surived 15 years, and David Garst has had an article for over 16 years sourced only to the website of his own company. I thought the no indiscriminate collections of knowledge rule worked faster. We really need to going to making all new articles go through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SALAT. Intothat darkness 21:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages.--Darwinek (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unencyclopedic. Zawed (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a list of surnames. No links to anything. As I read the source, someone in the 1850s found a muster role for the army and published it in 1855. That may (or may not - I do not know) be a significant historical source and an index to it might be useful, but this is not even an index. Wholly encyclopedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete What in the world even.....★Trekker (talk) 17:46, 31 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. Looks like my proposal for Socialism in 21st century Britain by Jacob Rees Mogg will have to go elsewhere. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World's shortest book[edit]

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

A type of joke. Fails WP:GNG. The first cited source, Harris, consists of a passing mention, a parenthetical observation: "(One of the late sixties joke templates was title-of-the-world's shortest-book, like Theories of Racial Harmony, by George Wallace, and Problems of the Obese, by Twiggy, and a prime candidate for this title circulating linguistics at the time was The Bawdy Humor of Noam Chomsky.)" I don't even know what the second reference is supposed to be, and in any case it is about a different topic, the empty book. Search results for this phrase seem to consist mostly of people making this joke, not discussing it.

Power~enwiki proposed to merge this article into Empty book, but on reflection I disagree. Empty book is about books with blank pages that have been published as a joke, whereas this is only about a vaguely similar kind of joke, minus the actual book. Perhaps there is some list of jokes this could redirect to? Otherwise I recommend deletion. The joke is not even funny. Sandstein 19:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 19:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Empty book: They are essentially the same thing, or close enough that it doesn't make sense to have two distinct articles. Whether the joke is funny or not is irrelevant, and it is just another way of describing empty books for a more specific purpose. Find citations for the books, i guess. Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Theleekycauldron, they are not the same thing, and merging them would be WP:OR because we have no sources making the connection. This article is about the jokes people tell each other of the form: "What's the world's shortest book? It's 'What A knows about B'." Empty book is about actual physical books with empty pages that people publish with titles like "What X knows about Y". These books are not short, but empty. The general kind of (stupid) joke is the same, but one is just a joke, the other is a physical book. Also, I would't know what to merge except perhaps the one sentence from Harris, which would be plagiarism. Sandstein 22:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sandstein: You're not wrong, but I don't think it's true that the book titles aren't worth preserving. Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Empty books at least exist. In the truly odd case of Fifty Shades of Gray it ran 50 blank pages in 50 shades. Here most of these things never existed beyond someone saying it once, somewhere. It is a much more ephemeral and meansingless concept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A stub article about a template? Not even sure what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this article clearly shows that being an "Amazon best seller" is not in any way a sign of notability, this is not really worth having an article on, especially since it is not well sourced, and some of the information in her borders on the insulting, at times to whole ethnic groups, there is no good reason to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dubdisk Records[edit]

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

Does not look to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP; sources found during a WP:BEFORE search do not address the company directly with an appropriate level of depth. I also do not believe that being 'the first dubstep record label in Swindon' is enough of a reason for us to ignore the notability concerns. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literally no recent mentions in reliable secondary sources, not notable at all, the dubstep craze has not taken over Swindon. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources don't indicate WP:GNG. Setreis (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. My search turned up nothing. JSFarman (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general notability standards Jenyire2 07:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately one of the few sources is a permanent dead link. Proving WP:N here will require more sources to be listed. Redoryxx (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable per available sourcing. Redoryxx (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Kashmiri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG I can find no in-depth significant coverage Prod was declined because "there were sources on the article when the BLPPROD was added that verify information in the article" IMDb is not usually considered reliable and the other two don't verify anything. Theroadislong (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My google did nor find anything, the 'sources' on the article do not support WP:GNG I randomly followed 3 or 4 the links shows he "directed" and he is either not mentioned or is one of several (presumably minor) directors. Jeepday (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masahiko Arimachi[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article suggests the subject will pass WP:GNG, my search did not find anything but there are language issues. The Other Language Page implies the subeject is near to meeting WP:NACTOR but not there yet, the references one the other language page do NOT support WP:GNG. No objections to recreation when they meet WP:NACTOR. Sig by User:Jeepday added 18:58, 2 February 2021 . Sig added by scope_creep^Talk 19:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. AFA[edit]

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

I can't find any decent sources about this mini-football (which appears to be another term for futsal) club. Searching the Georgian name (ახალგაზრდა ფეხბურთელთა ასოციაცია) does not come up with anything useful and the Georgian Wikipedia article is also completely unsourced. I'm not sure that there's anything inherently notable about competing in the Friendship Championship or Forum Cup either but please do correct me if I'm wrong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. as noted the term "mini-football" is confusing. Nigej (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet notability. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:51, 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 merge to Bee Gees as an alternative to deletion. There was certainly no consensus to keep, and there was a rough consensus that suitable sources existed to be merged and kept as a possible search term, rather than deleted outright. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Gibb[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, "just" mother of "the Bee Gees", 3 times previously deleted CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the parent of members of a musical group is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, no categories, nothing important. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A perfect example of notability not being inherited. --Kbabej (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: or merge to Bee Gees per WP:GNG, coverage includes: obituaries in AP, Billboard, The Guardian, The Miami Herald, a 1600 word obit in The Times that I cannot find a link to, and many others. There is also coverage, albeit less in depth of her struggles with deaths of the family etc. such as [10], [11], and mentions in the obits of her chidren. She is also cited in books such as [12] and [13], though those aren't the best sources for notability. The idea that notability shouldn't be inherited doesn't mean you can just ignore coverage such as obituaries in newspapers of record. When combined with the other sourcing, I think there's enough to indicate notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Giving birth to famous children does not convey notability. There is nothing here that cannot be covered in Bee Gees or the individual children's articles. WWGB (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

certainly that does not by itself, but if sufficient coverage exists GNG can still be met, which I feel is the case here. Covering her somewhere else would not mean deleting, but merging. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. It seems her only notability is being the mother of several successful pop singers. ExRat (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
again, NOTINHERITED is not some magic wand you can wave to remove all coverage that would go towards meeting GNG. There’s an argument to be made that the sources I presented don’t establish GNG but blindly ignoring them is not particularly helpful in determining notability. A person can absolutely inherit notability based on the coverage they have (otherwise why would we have articles on people like Nancy Lincoln?) not inherited just means that people aren’t de facto notable because of their association with notable people, which nobody is suggesting here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I agree with you that some people become notable in their own right following the notability of a relative (see Jackie Stallone), nearly every article used as a source in this article is titled to the effect of "Barbara Gibb, Bee Gees mother"; notable almost exclusively for being the mother of The Bee Gees. ExRat (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe a selective merge to Bee Gees would be an appropriate compromise? I feel her role should be mentioned somewhere (obviously if we merge it wouldn't be the whole article but a sentence or two here and there). I certainly feel this isn't a clear cut case of definitely notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't see any issue with having the information merged into The Bee Gees article as it provides sourced information into the background of the brothers. ExRat (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once you get past "she was a singer" and "she was an early manager", there's not much else to say. WWGB (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, I suppose. But, some information sourced from this article could be included. ExRat (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on provided info can't say that she meets WP:MUSICBIO and just being the mother of Bee Gees is not significant enough to have its own page. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Bee Gees. It seems that the mother of three famous musicians might be a valid search term, and WP:ATD is policy. As an add on, perhaps the presence of a redirect in mainspace might deter future need to have a third AfD at some point. 174.254.194.24 (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bee Gees. Obituaries in multiple noted publications argue against outright deletion. Also, they do say she and her husband were early Bee Gees managers. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thought bubble. It occurred to me that maybe we can work around this issue by developing an article to be called Gibb family. There are three generations of notable members:

Hugh

Barry, Robin, Maurice, Andy

Steve, Spencer

Such an article would also provide for recognition of other family members like Barbara Gibb and Sammy Gibb. WWGB (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being the mother of a celebrity doesn't make one inherently notable, but it certainly makes it likely that you'll be noticed. The unpaid obituaries in The Guardian and The Times are unambiguous evidence that these reliable sources found her life to be noteworthy, therefore she is notable. pburka (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bee Gees. All the other Gibbs who have articles do so because they have been independently notable musicians in their own right, except Hugh who I'd like to merge with the parent band article. As for a family article, no - just no, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim and Mary McCartney (2nd nomination). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Matthew[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. All sources I could find pertain only to releases. All charted singles appear to be through Slander (DJs); see WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom . No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 12:45, 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 keep. Rough consensus among the participants was that there was precedent per WP:POLOUTCOMES for keeping this article, which was also improved during the course of the discussion. Sole dissention came from a weak delete, so there was certainly no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. Brendan Fleming[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fleming was mayor of Lowell, Massachusetts, a city of less than 100,000 people at the time which is part of the Boston metro area. I dug deeper though. Since 1944 the office of mayor in Lowell has been a ceremonial office, the mayor has no more actual power than any other member of the city council. In the past when faced with mayors of similarly sized and important level cities to Lowell with ceremonial mayors, such as Richard Notte in Sterling Heights, Michigan we have deleted the articles. Notte at least was mayor a while, Fleming served just 2 years. The one source is actually coverage about a debate on whether to name a park after Jack Kerouac, and Fleming's opposition to this is noted. The coverage in that article is not focused on Fleming. My search for information on Fleming did not find any sourcing, verifiability says we really should not have so much unsourced information in the article, but as shown above in other similar situations of ceremonial mayors of similarly sized locales we have deleted the article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak delete. Per nominator. A mayor of a city of Lowell's size does not pass WP:NPOL, so to be relevant there should be coverage to show that he was more than a local figure per WP:POLOUTCOMES (especially since as a ceremonial mayor, he did not have much more power than a councilor). The only coverage I could find were articles by the Lowell Sun (very local newspaper), an obituary by the Boston Globe (local), and a few mentions in a book about Lowell municipal elections. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Updated vote: Lowell seems to have some regional and historic prominence, but I'm not entirely convinced of Brendan Fleming's relevancy: only one article from a non-Lowell newspaper (The Boston Globe) provides significant coverage and the position is mostly ceremonial. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although if one should consider population, Lowell has been the fourth largest city in Massachusetts and has reached population > 100,000 since 1910. All other mayors in Lowell's history also have their own page as showcased on List of mayors and city managers of Lowell, Massachusetts. If this page should be deleted instead, it should be noted every Lowell mayor which has their own page would have to be deleted and the page listing them. BenKlesc (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying a mayor of Lowell cannot meet the relevancy criteria. I have noticed that a large portion of Lowell mayors with an article have also been members of the Massachusetts Senate/House of Representatives, which cause them to pass WP:NPOL. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Mayors: Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD . . . Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors." I have a recollection that this has been interpreted to mean that, in general, mayors of cities with population > 100,000 are notable. Cbl62 (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Lowell had over 100,000 inhabitants in 1982–84, given Lowell, Massachusetts' demographic section. However, if you can show consensus that mayors of cities that would later reach 100,000 people are considered notable, I'm willing to change my vote. I now also agree that the Boston Globe counts towards WP:GNG, but WP:Multiple sources are needed. Factiva and NewsBank show that more newpapers have written about Brendan Fleming's opposition to naming the park after Kerouac, but those article don't provide significant coverage. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a point of view to consider. If you take every major city whether that be Boston, Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles. Those cities at one point had population > 100,000, but you can find thousands of mayors with their own page which governed at a time when they were relatively small in population compared with today. Examples New York City's Mayor John Ferguson who served in 1815. Boston's mayors from 1834 to 1836 Theodore Lyman II, Jonathan Chapman who served from 1840 to 1842, and William Parker serving in 1845. Chicago's mayors Benjamin Wright Raymond from 1840, and Alexander Loyd from 1840 to 1841, and Augustus Garrett from 1845 to 1846. Los Angeles mayors from 1899 John Bryson,Thomas E. Rowan from 1892 to 1894, and Cristobal Aguilar from 1866 to 1867 out of the many more. I chose to highlight these as mayors that had no other political experience, in cities which at one point had a population > 100,000. BenKlesc (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment. Lowell has had a population of > 100,000 since the early 1900s. I thought we had a guideline or established practice that mayors of cities with populations > 100,000 were presumed to be notable. Has that changed? Also, The Boston Globe obit (here) is quite substantive and should definitely be counted in any meaningful GNG analysis. Cbl62 (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lowell has been a notable city in Massachusetts, with all mayors already having their own pages as seen on List of mayors and city managers of Lowell, Massachusetts. Sterling Heights had a population < 3,000 in 1940. Some more examples would be that New York City did not have a population > 100,000 until 1820, but we also have List of mayors of New York City going back to 1655. I have updated more relevant citations from Associated Press and internationally acclaimed Boston Globe. Also this article was written in collaboration with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Massachusetts. BenKlesc (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lowell is a city of "regional prominence" as described in WP:POLOUTCOMES regarding Mayors. Lowell was one of the first industrial centers in the United States dating to the early 1800s. It rose above 100,000 population by the early 1900s. (The fact that it dipped for 3 decades slightly below 100,000 when the US textile industry collapsed does not change this. Indeed, the city's comeback/revitalization began during Fleming's mayoralty as discussed in this piece from the Christian Science Monitor.) Moreover, Fleming has received coverage sufficient to pass the WP:GNG bar. Examples include this from The Boston Globe and this, this, and this from the Lowell Sun. In addition, Fleming's battle against Kerouac park received national attention. E.g., here and here. Finally, the nominator's comparison to Sterling Heights is WP:OSE and inapposite; unlike Lowell, Sterling Heights is barely even a real city; it didn't even crack 5,000 population until after WWII and is a mere suburb of Detroit. Cbl62 (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above editors have ignored the fact that the mayor of Lowell holds a ceremonial postion, the mayor is not the actual administrative postion. The gratuitous attacks on a city of well over 130,000 as "barely even a real city" are uncalled for and show a huge bias that has no justification. Structurally Sterling Heights is just as much a "real city" as any other city in Michigan, and the total rudeness in the comments is totally uncalled for and not justified. These editors have in no way addressed the fact that being mayor of Lowell is not the position that is the adminstrator of the city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comparison to Sterling Heights works because they are both cities with council/manager forms of government. Sterling Heights has been the location of several very significant automobile factories for well over half a centry. The dismissive and rude comments above are not at all justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In your nominating statement, you drew an analogy between Lowell and Sterling Heights asserting that they were "similarly sized and important level". In fact, Sterling Heights is WP:OSE and should never have been brought into the discussion. Moreover, the comparison is utterly inapt since Lowell's history is long and profound in the industrial history of the US, whereas Sterling Heights is (per our WP article) "one of Detroit's core suburbs" and didn't even incorporate as a city until 1968. Cbl62 (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some may agree or disagree and that is okay. Always love to see passion and hope to keep this debate civil and respectful. My take for this would be that Lowell has had a significant history going back two and ahalf centuries and 140 years of signifiant population. Especially if you take WP:OSE arguments. The argument I'm looking at and correct if wrong, since the city dipped < 100,000 for a decade it disqualifies mayors. I would say the one point to consider is that you can apply the same justification to every city in the United States. Now the second argument and correct if wrong is that Lowell's position for mayor is ceremonial. That is true however, I would like to point to List of mayors and city managers of Lowell, Massachusetts showcasing that every mayor in Lowell's history already has their own page if that adds any significance. It's also showing he was manager of the city council and voting member for nine consecutive terms with significant press coverage. I would like to point out that Sterling Heights, Michigan has no page dedicated to elected mayors, however now that its population has reached a significant size I would defend public officials with notable significance from deletion. It appears it did not have any historical significance until the last three decades in terms of population size and notability. I also see and like the use of citations which meet WP:NPOL requirements. If anyone disagrees would love to hear other opinions and have someone else chime in. BenKlesc (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the mayors since Fleming, 11 lack articles. There are also several mayors before Fleming who lack articles. The claim we have articles on every mayor of Lowell is false. Beyond that, several of the mayors of Lowell have articles as a result of holding other offices. Sterling Heights, Michigan has had significance for all the 50+ years of its existence. It was virtually as large in the 1980s as it is today, stop talking about things you know nothing about. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and it suffers from extreme over coverage of all things related to Massachusetts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was a page exists of every mayor in Lowell's history, and they are hyperlinked to pages that are in question of being deleted which would alter that significant page. I cannot answer what happened because I was not around when Richard Notte was deleted, but I can say that is my view based on my interpretation of WP:NPOL standards. Of my interpretation a mayor of Lowell, Massachusetts does not violate a written guideline. I will be anxious to hear as we open to other opinions on what they believe should be done. BenKlesc (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update If anyone is interested, I spent the last week researching more backstory for the page that was rather unfinished. I've added the altercation with Senator Ted Kennedy when the Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis ordered the Attorney General to sue Fleming and Lowell School Committee on 14th amendment violations during the Boston desegregation busing crisis. I've cited articles from Boston Globe and Christian Science Monitor. I believe this political figure is a somewhat significant part of Lowell and Massachusetts history. BenKlesc (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The existence of a list article on Wikipedia on a topic does not prove that it is notable. It just proves that someone cared about it. Wikipedia has lots of unneeded articles and lacks lots of needed ones. We do not follow grandfather clauses or other policies that would make our existant content determanative of the content that is needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. While mayors of mid-sized cities are not automatically notable, they can be if WP:SIGCOV shows they pass WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Hosseini (footballer, born 1970)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and never played in a fully professional league so far as I can see. Even if he has, an unknown number of appearances doesn't satisfy GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football player. It is time Wikipedia stops being footballepedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that he meets any criteria, unfortunately Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy Bebop (2021 TV series)[edit]

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

Unreleased television series that does not satisfy television notability because it has not yet been released. Moved prematurely from draft space into article space. Recommend sending back to draft space until the show is broadcast and reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The development process has already been covered adequately to establish wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR'easter. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 18:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a popular property on a major streaming service that has been filming for at least 6 months and is nearing a release in the coming months. I see no reason why this would be deleted but other pages for major upcoming shows stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomslug1 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theres nothing wrong with it so dont delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:549:8100:6E50:D1DC:F0BD:1932:1BFA (talk) 22:55, 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. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irshad Mirza[edit]

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

A non-notable businessman who fails WP:BASIC, WP:BIO. Merely on the basis of awards nobility can't be established. RationalPuff (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...a non-notable businessman. Kolma8 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Workspace Macro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2008 NC close when sourcing requirements were very different. No evidence this product was ever notable. Parent company has no article, nor is there evidence available that it would be notable enough to create and merge this to. StarM 16:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A ten year old macro recorder for a company/website that does't exist. Not sure it was even notable back in the day... Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so what it doesn't exist now? Notability is not measured in life span.Unspectrogram (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply there's no sourcing to indicate it was ever notable. StarM 14:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing references do not meet WP:GNG My search did not find anything to add. There is no indication this has ever been notable. Jeepday (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gafurbhai M. Bilakhia[edit]

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

A non-notable businessman who fails WP:BASIC, WP:BIO. Merely on the basis of awards nobility can't be established. RationalPuff (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources doesn't satisfies WP:GNG. SpareSeiko (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Prakash Agarwal (businessman)[edit]

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

A non-notable businessman who fails WP:BASIC, WP:BIO. Merely on the basis of awards nobility can't be established. RationalPuff (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A non-notable BLP that fails WP:BIO. Kolma8 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Allman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not seeing GNG notability in this BLP article, it is lacking citations. I was not able to quickly find any new RS citations. On the talk page there is a prior AFD with the result of "speedy deletion". Jooojay (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jooojay (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally don't see anything that would make this person notable according to the basic notability requirements but there are some mystical SNG's out there like WP:NPROF that may have snuck in a little five word sentence somewhere giving this guy some special privilege making him notable here. I suggest to the nominator to look at those SNG's too. I concur with their BEFORE search that nothing I see would be considered definitively reliable and independent. --ARose Wolf 16:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Jooojay. I looked at the discussion for the speedy deletion and I see where it was ruled to delete but shows up as keep on the talk page. Clearly the article wasn't deleted. --ARose Wolf 16:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it was speedy deleted the first time and brought back, possibly by review, then went to AfD again and was basically upheld on procedure as the delete votes were canceled out for various reasons. --ARose Wolf 16:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The LA Times article is three paragraphs but doesn't offer anything substantially different than other less reliable sources included. They do have book but I can't find where that book has received critical reviews which is important. You do not become notable simply for writing a book. I don't see where this person receives significant coverage in multiple intellectually independent reliable secondary sources. A bio/campus profile carries no more credence than a LinkedIn profile, an interview/self-published website or a social media account. --ARose Wolf 16:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found another review of Allman's work: https://whitehotmagazine.com/articles/2012-ricky-allman-marine-contemporary/2616 Vexations (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not nearly near enough sources to justify the existence of this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking through his CV doesn't find anything that might pass WP:PROF (like national-level awards or an above-full-professor title) nor anything that might pass WP:CREATIVE (like being included in the permanent collections of multiple notable museums). And the analysis above shows that WP:GNG-style notability for obtaining publicity rather than for accomplishments is also missing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing that he was in LA Times(an in-depth coverage), I did a little more searching and found more sources to add. I also found many of his exhibition listings and based on that he meets WP:ARTISTS. I think everyone is getting this one wrong. Webmaster862 (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – just a reminder gallery websites and first person interviews are not reliable sources. Do we know if he is in any museum collections? I don't believe having regional commercial gallery shows is enough for meeting WP:ARTISTS. Jooojay (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Jooojay: This info was easy to find on his website. He has had 3 Museum exhibitions and many gallery exhibitions. I am not familiar with art galleries, so I cant say if any are significant, but please check his website. I have now added these museum exhibitions to his page under a new section. I also found a good coverage in Harvard Business Review, which is a credible publication. I am also aware profiles are not good as citations, but I only added them to show that he has exhibitions at those places. Webmaster862 (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clean up efforts and research, Webmaster862. A lot of people have museum and gallery exhibitions for their art, my concern is notability. I am still seeing weak sourcing for GNG and WP:ARTISTS. Jooojay (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insignificant, 1-paragraph, low-information mentions really don't count (HBR). GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagore Almeida[edit]

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

complete spam article, refbombed out the wazoo, but sourced almost entirely to blackhat SEO and paid for nonsense (and interviews, of course.) CUPIDICAE💕 14:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The intro has over three references, to prove he's who he says he is? Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 27 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 16:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 ACS Poli Timișoara season[edit]

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

Another stats article which violates a number of elements of WP:NOT. Clearly not given the presumed notability under WP:NSEASONS and fails WP:GNG. This season is actually covered better in ACS Poli Timișoara so this article serves little purpose. Essentially, this article is an (incomplete) collection of statistics on a season that does not meet notability guidelines on its own; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See also previous consensus at this, this, this and many others.

In addition, I searched for some of the matches at random to see what sort of coverage they generally get. I could only find trivial match reporting with little analysis or depth, for example The Sportsman, Tribuna and Futaa and so on. This is bare minimum stats-only reporting and does not confer notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the assessment of the nominator. Fails the basic principles of notability for inclusion WP:N WP:NOT --ARose Wolf 16:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous similar discussions. Nigej (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Balwant Rai[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP about a player who hasn't even competed in an official competition for his club yet[14], and today it was even announced that he was released from the club[15]. Fram (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; hasn't played in a match yet, therefore fails WP:NCRIC ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 15:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; too little WP:SIGCOV, does not meet any notability guidelines. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:SPORTCRIT nor WP:NCRIC nor WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails basic notability criteria found in WP:N. --ARose Wolf 17:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing notable to see here at all. And the image is an obvious copyvio as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, no indication of notability here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and speedy). I thought I recognised the name, as I was asked about him in October. This article has been deleted before (see the article log). This article has been re-created by an editor who has a very bad record for creating hoaxes and other such non-notable rubbish too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being part of a squad isn't notable enough. Fails WP:GNG

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Groht[edit]

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

Unsourced "surname" page containing only entries for a non-notable photographer and a fictional character not mentioned in the target page. No encyclopedic value. PamD 12:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. PamD 12:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subjects they refer to are non-notable. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mockelberg, page does not meet the criteria for a DAB or a set index article. Servers no navigation function, only entries are nn fictional characters w/o articles. // Timothy :: talk 13:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is need to keep and protect, the surname Groht is a real surname, a lot of evidence can found on the web, don't judge this page casually. Hope everyone can help keep the page, thank you. --Werstone (talk) 2:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Please could you share some of this coverage on the web with us? Thanks Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is deserved to keep, a lot of evidence can prove the surname is real, thank you. --Lord Djibril (talk) 3:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no doubts that the surname is real. Have you got any evidence that it has received extensive coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT. If there is a notable person with the surname of Groht then by all means, write the article on them, include sources and it should stay. A surname is not notable because of the name but who has the name and that is where the notability should lie, with the individual person. If you get enough articles written about persons with the Groht surname then you could, theoretically, create a category for this name and link all of them together. It does not deserve a stand-a-lone article. --ARose Wolf 17:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just existing does not make a surname notable. There are no sources to verrify anything, and verrifiability is the key to Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is updated, go to see the article again, surname Groht is a notable surname, evidence of notability is been updated. thank you. --Everstonerelm (talk) 6:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Checkuser note: Werstone, Lord Djibril, and Everstonerelm are confirmed sockpuppets of each other. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord Djibril. Mz7 (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no article on the photographer (if we did, ((R from surname)) would be appropriate), and the article about the anime doesn't mention the name. Four articles in enwiki cite Johannes Groht, but none is a suitable redirect target. We have no mention of de:Silke Groht. Narky Blert (talk) 07:38, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hell'z Movie[edit]

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

This article was created in December 2015. The same month it was tagged for notability. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A "never released album" with zero sources for the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero sources in the article currently, and searches turn up no coverage in reliable sources. The fact that it was never released, and isn't even mentioned on Bizzy Bone's own article or discography, means its not even worth a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, couldn't find any. Never released, fails WP:GNG worse than I do. I don't matter but at least I exist Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable, not released, and not reviewed. --Kbabej (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article contradicts itself by claiming that this album was cancelled before it went into production, but somehow there are a few copies. This indicates unsupported fan trivia. This item is non-existent in reliable sources and probably in reality too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bizzy Bone: Barely found anything about the "album" aside from a passing mention in a book. It's best if it's briefly discussed in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nelleis[edit]

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

Unsourced "surname" page where the only entry is a fictional character not listed at the target article. PamD 12:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PamD 12:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with nominator. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mockelberg, page does not meet the criteria for a DAB or a set index article. Servers no navigation function, only entries are nn fictional characters w/o articles. // Timothy :: talk 12:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is need to keep, the surname Nelleis is a real surname, a lot of evidence can found on the web, hope everyone can help keep the page. --Werstone (talk) 2:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep. This page is deserved to keep, a lot of evidence can prove the surname is real, thank you. --Lord Djibril (talk) 3:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Checkuser note: Werstone and Lord Djibril are confirmed sockpuppets of each other. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord Djibril. Mz7 (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I said based on Mckelberg, we need sources which are lacking here. Nothing "deserves" a page, and just because a surname is "real", which means 1 or more real people have it or had it, does not mean that we need to have an article on it. Wikipedia has never undertook to be the comprehensive database of all existing surnames. Even if that was a reasonable goal for Wikipedia, we would still need reliable sources to back up every entry, and such sourcing does not exist at all here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT. If there are notable persons with this surname then write an article on them, specifically. A surname is not inherently notable and any notability should be with the individual person, not the surname. --ARose Wolf 17:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a surname page that does not disambiguate and the surname itself has no coverage at all in reliable sources so fails WP:GNG and violates WP:V. The statement It is variant spelling of the Dutch surname “Nelis”. It can also be a reduced form of the Irish surname “McNelis”. could not be verified anywhere and since this article has no other meaningful content, it should be deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete is a no brainer. I checked if this could also be redirected (redirects are cheap) but would advise strongly against it based on how uncommon this name is on WP (n=0) and "out there" and that it is unsourced. Just rid of this stuff. gidonb (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This page and a see-also in Nellis are the only two mentions of "Nelleis" in enwiki. Narky Blert (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like a directory. Orientls (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tally Solutions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All of the references are based on interviews and information provided by the company or trivial coverage. References fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, fails our notability requirements for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Likely to be notable based on the existence of sources like [16] [17]. I am fairly sure that there is more coverage in print sources from the pre-internet era. M4DU7 (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In past AFDs it was kept at, reliable sources were found. https://www.thehindu.com/business/companies/Tally-Solutions-restructures-business/article14958547.ece https://www.business-standard.com/article/sme/tally-solutions-to-aggressively-target-smaller-businesses-112041000075_1.html https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Tally-Solutions-clocks-1-Million-Customers-Globally/articleshow/52113127.cms https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/tally-solutions-bullish-on-indian-retail-market-114030500860_1.html Dream Focus 00:27, 31 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 Lego. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lego tire[edit]

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

Few years ago LEGO made a press release that they produce more toy tires than car companies make real tiers, wich got the brick an entry into the Guiness book of records ([18]) and was reported in few news outlets (which just rewrote/reword the cited press release). But WP:NOTNEWS and outside this one factoid there is nothing going for this component, the coverage of its and any significance is related to this one single fact. I don't think it's enough to warrant this topic getting a stand-alone article (as it seems to fail WP:GNG). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge For what it describes, could be a subsection in the main Lego bricks article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely holding a Guinness world record makes the subject notable? SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SailingInABathTub, Please see the comment below by JPL. I concur that the Guinness world record does not grant auto-notability, due to a relatively low bar for inclusion (see their official guidelines here) and trivial categories ([19]: "Farhaan Shoaib, 12, sets a Guinness World Record for “Most bounces of a soap bubble on a soap film”...), but at the same time, I can't find past discussions of this outside the tiny one here. A search of past AfDs ([20]) suggest I am right, however: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lu Chao (Guinness World Records), for example. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with Oaktree - the little bit of coverage and information this factoid got probably makes it worth a mention on the main Lego article, but certainly not enough to validate having an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holding a Guiness Book of World Records "record" in no way makes anything notable. It is a low research promotional activity aimed at accuing useless trivia people like to spout when drunk, inclusion is not anywhere close to showing notability, and if you consider how the inclusion happened in this case, including the entry would make us complicit in churnalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "accuing"? What is "churnalism"? How do these words aid understanding? I suggest you consider revision of your comment to make it understandable. ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing a reason to delete in the nomination, just some rambling WP:NOTCLEANUP. And the topic is notable, of course. Apart from the world record, there's detailed technical coverage in sources such as this. Note also the absurdity of creating a page just for this idle discussion. It's these pages that we don't need. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia would not be Wikipedia without myriad essays dressed up to look like policy pages... been that way for decades and the thicket only increases. But this might not be the place to rail against them ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC) (addendum: that said... the particular page you point to IS policy, and it's a very helpful and valuable page. Editors should keep it in mind before contemplating creating new pages... ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Clear GNG failure. Not opposed to a merge but this is not notable enough for its own article. SK2242 (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge That LEGO make more tyres than the biggest tyre manufacturer, is an interesting bit of trivia but I'm not seeing the need for an entire article, and the current article seems like a bit of a mish-mash... merging it into the main LEGO article seems like a good approach. Not convinced that this bit of clever marketing fails GNG though. ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails the notability requirement as presented in the nomination, weak arguments in favour to keep it notwithstanding. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We don't need an article just to compare the production totals. Reywas92^Talk 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Oaktree b above. Interesting fact, but not an article in its own right. Llwyld (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- interesting factoid, but single factoids don't necessarily warrant a whole article to themselves, especially not when there's an obvious merge candidate. Reyk _YO! 11:48, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of first openly LGBT politicians in the United States[edit]

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

I am wholly pro-LGBTQ rights and pro-pride, but this article may qualify for deletion for having way too many violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, specifically WP:GRAPEVINE, whereby there are large swaths of content in the article stating that living persons are homosexual, without proper verification stating so. There are several potential repercussions about this problem: in general, it is unencyclopedic, it goes against BLP policy, and this has the potential to "out" living persons that may not necessarily want to be outed. Needs a community discussion to evaluate the merits of deletion versus leaving this BLP mess in place. Additionally, verification concerns were recently brought up by another user on the article's talk page here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Just clicking on a number of articles in the list I am not seeing any examples of BLP violations as their respective articles are properly sourced and verified. Any claims that can not be properly sourced or verified can be removed but I don't understand why that amounts to the deletion of this very important list, we do not delete articles because they have the potential to include BLP violations. All it takes is simply gathering the sources from the articles and moving them over to this list. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayJay. This is a case for vigilance, not deletion. If the risk of unintentionally or falsely outing people were grounds to delete an article, then we couldn't have any BLPs in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work to provide better sourcing. --Enos733 (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not nearly enough issues for WP:TNT to apply. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a massive example of POV-pushing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is it POV-pushing? It is a notable list and other countries have similar lists. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "openly" is part of the criteria so outing is by definition precluded here, as well as by our usual requirements for RS. All else is a matter for normal editing and policing, and outside of WP:SUSCEPTIBLE no cogent argument against having the list has been put forth. postdlf (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work to add more references per WP:RS. The fact that an article is lacking references is a surmountable problem; it's therefore an argument that should be avoided in deletion discussions per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Lincolnite (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see that the issues are insurmountable, and I'm notorious for invoking TNT. It's a perfectly good, limited list. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration and the input here, nomination withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 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 and redirect to List of Oxford University cricketers. Daniel (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Upadhyay[edit]

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

My name is Amit Upadhyay, and this page is in my name. I am not a notable enough person to be featured on wikipedia, and I wish to exercise the right to be forgotten. Please delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldwinterfloor (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite interesting revelation by the proposer. Regardless the fact you are indeed the subject or not, AfD outcomes are not decided by representations but by the merit of the subject and arguments. On this occasion it doesn't seem like to meet WP:NCRICKET, therefore delete. RationalPuff (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he meets WP:NCRIC by playing in a first-class match. At worst, redirect to List of Oxford University Cricket Club players Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; university matches may have been afforded first class status at the time, but in no way are they considered the "highest level of domestic or international cricket" as required by WP:NCRIC, so this does not gain the extremely weak presumption of notability afforded by that guideline. Also does not meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Oxford University cricketers which is an established alternative to deletion with articles such as this. Whilst he played a single first-class match, any attempt to justify that the University Match still retained top-class status in 2004 is laughable. There is a fringe argument that can be made for some MCCU players, but not those who only played for CU or OU. The match retained FC status for historical reasons only and was an anachronism for at least a decade before his appearance. I don't see that he meets the criteria for academics and there's no obvious GNG level of sourcing here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The match was not at the highest level of cricket, so considering playing it a sign of notability goes against the general principals of sport notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although our sports guidelines somehow claim that walking onto the field for a single top-level professional game is enough for notability, that principle hasn't been extended to university-level sports. And it appears clear that it is WP:TOOSOON for academic notability. So regardless of whether the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE can be verified by the subject going through WP:OTRS, I think we can delete this. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Jamin[edit]

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

This article does not present the complete biography and has serious problems regading the balance about its point of view WP:BLPBALANCE Jjrt (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1. No valid rationale for deletion is presented-- afd is not cleanup, if an article is complete so fix it. Sources such as [21], [22], and coverage like [23] go a long way to establish notability as significant in his field. That's without searching in french and spanish, where the vast majority of relevant coverage will likely be found. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Kolma8 (talk) 21:02, 31 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 editor who had done work to try and improve the article asserted it could not be done to a satisfactory level, and was not challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beeshu, Inc.[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:NCORP. A non-notable defunct company Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Have yet to actually make a vote, but Web Archive brings up quite a few results. Obviously, I'd have to check all of them to make sure they're not trivial mentions, but some I've seen I'd count as being significant coverage, such as this Computer Play article from 1988. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, I had no idea that all the old magazines this might have been mentioned in are archived and text searchable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 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) 14:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep that could be swayed by opposing evidence, based on the apparent failure of WP:BEFORE. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, internet searching gave no results, and looking though the internet archive search links mostly appear to be passing references. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no mentions in current online reliable sources, some WP:PASSING in the Internet Archive, as well as some WP:RUNOFTHEMILL via Newspapers.com, but nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. Also pinging @Vaticidalprophet, who asked for a WP:BEFORE. IceWelder [✉] 20:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added all applicable sources to the article. IceWelder [✉] 22:50, 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 merge to Chitral Somapala. Low traffic discussion, nominator supported a merge. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization One (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBANDS, was previously considered via an AfD and kept on the basis of meeting criteria 1 - "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in secondary sources". This however does not appear to be the case - is solely reliant on a single source.. Dan arndt (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2009-11 ✓ keep

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Doesnot meet WP:NBANDS. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
selective Merge to Chitral Somapala or very weak keep A cursory search found reviews in sources such as [24] in addition to the two already present in the article, but I'm not sure how great they are for notability. However, there's a clear merge target. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be reliably sourced to Chitral Somapala, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the AfD nominator I would support a Redirect and Merge. Dan arndt (talk) 02:42, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Won James Won[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band, can't find anything to suggest they are notable. Fails WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would a Redirect to Kirpichi work since they are associated with Won James Won? Foxnpichu (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd have agreed with the redirect suggestion, but I'm not sure Kirpichi would survive AfD. StarM 02:21, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Space (2015 Brit Awards performance)[edit]

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

A newly created article (four days ago) about a live performance of a song. This can be considered WP:CFORK of 2015 Brit Awards. Sources used are trivial and even unreliable (Hollywood Life; Junkee; Teen Vogue to name a few). Since redirect would not help much as this is not a plausible search term, and this article is now an orphaned article, I suggest the article be deleted. HĐ (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Other than deletion, what would you prefer then? Would it be better to put this information in the main article for "Blank Space" or the 2015 Brit Awards or the List of Taylor Swift live performances? Don't tell me that something like that isn't inherently workable as an alternative. And you can't just cherry-pick from a three sources that you consider to be trivial and unreliable and determine that makes the presence of this article unjustifiable. Keep in mind that that's only "a few" out of over nearly 60. And this isn't merely about the performance itself, but the background (such as the names of the backup dancers and what not) and critical reception. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Are The Daily Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/11433807/Taylor-Swift-wins-Elles-Woman-of-the-Year.html), ABC News (http://abcnewsradioonline.com/music-news/2015/2/25/sam-smith-taylor-swift-ed-sheeran-win-big-at-brit-awards-mad.html), Toronto Sun (https://torontosun.com/2015/02/25/ed-sheeran-sam-smith-rule-2015-brit-awards/wcm/72723d84-fbee-4406-b639-6ec48fadb68f), Marie Claire (https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/entertainment/music/brit-awards-2015-8-must-talk-about-moments-109586), BBC Newsbeat (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30489591), The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/dec/15/names-announced-brit-awards-taylor-swift), BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/entertainment-arts-31430677), Billboard (https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6480635/brit-awards-2015-recap), Entertainment Tonight (https://www.etonline.com/awards/160326_taylor_swift_brit_awards_2015_recap), or The Hollywood Reporter (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/taylor-swift-brit-awards-performance-777741), not good enough of sources then? Many of these sources aren't even in the main article for the 2015 Brit Awards nor the "Blank Space" article in itself, when discussing live performances. Even so, how exactly are Hollywood Life, Junkee, and Teen Vogue not reliable enough? They have their own Wikipedia articles, they they're allowed to be used as sources unlike say, The Daily Mail. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Should no individual award show or major concert have a separate article, for an individual performance then? Let's say for example, the famous Queen performance at Live Aid in 1985. Would you have an issue with there being a separate Wikipedia article for that, or should it only be summarized in the Live Aid section? Or Michael Jackson's performance at the Motown 25 television special in 1983, where he debuted the Moonwalk. What about the Beatles' first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show. Of course, Taylor Swift performance "Blank Space" at the 2015 Brit Awards, doesn't equal those events that I just mentioned. But my point is still, why can't there be separate coverage of a particular music performance if the sources and information (that isn't otherwise there) is available. BornonJune8 (talk) 8:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@BornonJune8: The sources you listed (Daily Telegraph, Billboard) discuss the Brit Awards and not this performance specifically, thus I don't see that satisfying WP:GNG which requires independent and non-trivial coverage. HollywoodLife and Teen Vogue are okay-ish, but not enough reliability for good quality sources. Don't bring WP:OTHERSTUFF into this discussion; alas, I am not seeing an independent article on Queen's Live Aid performance. I doubt if this specific performance is equally iconic as Queen's Live Aid, though. HĐ (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of sources used focus on the Brit Awards and not this performance specifically. Those do, however, fall into the category of gossip-y online fanzines/blogs (HollywoodLife, Facebook, "Your Next Shoes", "Star Style", Daily Express etc.) Keep in mind Wikipedia is not a directory for each and every indiscriminate collection of sources. Critical reviews are mostly derived from recap of the Brit Awards, making it WP:CFORK. The background section is straight-up news report, which Wikipedia is not. This whole article, subtracting the problematic issues that I raised, can be reasonably detailed at List of Taylor Swift live performances / Blank Space / 2015 Brit Awards (which already is). HĐ (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A four minute performance is certainly not notable for its own wiki article. It’s a WP:CFORK. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this should be Redirected to somewhere, but I can’t really decide where it should. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Foxnpichu: As HĐ said, redirecting wouldn’t be a good idea as this is not a plausible search term. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - How not though? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - As of now this article is orphaned, so I don't think there is a possibility that readers would search this specific article in its exact terms. HĐ (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overdetail about a WP:ROUTINE awards show performance. Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ I already said, would it be preferable then to lift the information and place it in List of Taylor Swift live performances / Blank Space / 2015 Brit Awards? And now, as of right now, it isn't extensively detailed there outside basic level information. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BornonJune8: You can do so at 2015 Brit Awards (aside from this performance, sources can also be used to improve details on other performances of other artists as well). Having a standalone article, however, is not a good alternative. HĐ (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although, that could be seen as WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If this particular performance should be expanded upon, then performances of other artists should be as well, but to a certain extent that does not violate WP:UNDUE, and sources used should comply with reliability guidelines. HĐ (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana's performance at the 1992 MTV Awards was a legitimate news story, as was Prince on the Grammys in 1984 and Madonna's performance of "Like a Virgin on the VMAS the same year. Elton John and Eminem at the Grammys, Adele at the BRITS in 2011, and Ricky Martin "Livin' La Vida Loca" in 1999 on the Grammys? There are no standalone articles on any of these performances, all of which would easily meet GNG. Taylor Swift's performance of "Blank Spaces" on the American Music Awards is included on this Billboard list of the "100 Greatest Awards Show Appearances" but it's at #97 and it's not from the BRITS. Regardless of its quality (I have no opinion) it was a routine promotional appearance meant to heat up her record sales.JSFarman (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have to vote on having this draft to be deleted. As HĐ said, it does not include reliable sources and and a four-minute performance doesn't cut out to be in Wikipedia. Another issue that I saw that I think that needs to be pointed out is that there are list of people who commented on Taylor Swift's dress. One, I don't think it's necessary to have it, and two, it's not important. The article itself also can be seen as WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT, as D🐶ggy54321 stated above. I think it should be deleted. Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 17:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my earlier comment. It may meet GNG but it's a bit crufty as well as what Wikipedia is not. JSFarman (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not view that the sources available indicate any notability/cultural legacy of this performance to warrant its own article. My issue with HollywoodLife and Teen Vogue is not their reliability (they might not be perfect but this is not an FAC we're talking about here.. they're not some ramshackle blogs). I don't think just because sourcing is less-than-perfect articles should be deleted (you're supposed to improve sourcing where possible). The thing is they just write a few lines and link to the video to get clicks... mostly routine coverage of an awards show performance. For example, if there were multiple articles about the production of the performance–or actual full-length reviews—then this would be a different situation, but there just isn't that information available (signaling that perhaps this performance does not warrant an article of its own). Relevant information could be used to expand an article elsewhere (as per the above: the live performances list, the awards show article, the Blank Space article, etc.) Heartfox (talk) 06:03, 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 redirect to The Love Club EP. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Club (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. This article is made up of largely album discussions/reviews without independent of the song itself. I was the one that brought this to GA status, but looking back, this article should not have existed in the first place. To comply with NSONGS, I recommend this article redirected to The Love Club EP. HĐ (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only has the song charted, but it's got multiple Gold certifications. Realistically speaking, singles don't get certified gold and not have a few sources about them somewhere out there. Sergecross73 msg me 11:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The one and only criterion of NSONGS that matters is third-party, independent coverage on a song's significance, which this article lacks. I conducted another round of source review, but it appears that sources discussing this particular song are few and far between--most sources rather discuss The Love Club EP. In this digital age, it is getting easier for non-album songs certified, so I don't think it is a strong enough reason to keep a standalone article. I hate OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but a look at Taylor Swift singles discography#Other charted songs and we can see quite a lot of non-single certified songs not having standalone articles as well. HĐ (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Im very familiar with NSONGS, I'm just saying, in my experience, it's very rare to find singles that charted and certified in multiple separate countries and then not have a handful of reliable sources covering the song. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I also said that, after a source review, most sources discuss the EP and not this particular song. HĐ (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't looked into the sources for this yet but as I was looking and I do have a questions for the nominator? It appears that this article is part of a Pure Heroine series which has every song from the album not only created with their own article but that all of them have been promoted as Good Articles. What is interesting is the person who appears to have done all that work to get it to that standard, is now nominating the article they created and even got a award for? NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 11:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requirements for songs were not as strict as today's version. If I remember correctly, a song that has charted on any chart could easily have an article. After lengthy debates, notability requirement for songs now requires third-party coverage, which is the one and only criterion that matters. Judging from that perspective, as this song's article's content is derived mostly from album reviews and not discussions on the song itself, it has no longer satisfied the notability requirements. I hope things clear up @NZFC: HĐ (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @HĐ:, that does. It had thrown me for a loop when I was looking through it all and was writing up a comment only to realise you were both creator and nominee. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 11:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nice joke though versacespace 04:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VersaceSpace: I am sorry? HĐ (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't need to exclusively be about a topic to meet gng. The song is clearly notable and it charted. versacespace 13:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's for general notability. For songs specifically, WP:NSONGS states that songs should be covered in independent and non-trivial sources. Hardly any source discusses this song in-depth that it is "clearly notable". HĐ (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The song has charted in several territories, and has received certifications. So passes WP:NSONGS. Ashleyyoursmile! 13:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Love Club EP. Chart positions and certifications alone do not establish enough notability for a separate article. The emphasis should be placed on whether or not the song has received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources (outside of EP reviews). I think that this is viable search term (and thus, should be kept to help readers), but I find that the sources focus on the EP not this particular song. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NZFC: Given your comment above, would you mind weighing in your opinion on whether to delete/keep/redirect/merge this article? HĐ (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: thanks for the ping, forgot to come back to this.

Redirect to The Love Club EP. I was first thinking that notability isn't temporary so this article would be staying, but I see under that guideline "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested". Then with HĐ's comment above, that when this article was created and even got to be a Good Article, the guidelines were ''not as strict as today's." I then assessed the article off the new guidelines. From those and the sources provided, my feeling is the song itself hasn't received significance coverage to warrant a stand-alone article and should be redirected to The Love Club EP instead. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Love Club EP reviews from parent album/EP own their own aren't enough to warrant a page. Neither are the very brief mentions HuffPost, Idolator, Billboard, and 3News or the artist commentary at The Cut (which is self-promotion and only a paragraph long anyway). This lack of adequate coverage within any credible sources not affiliated with artist/label/producers/songwriters renders any chartings moot, and contrary to what many seem to think, entering a chart doesn't automatically mean songs warrant a page. What WP:NSONGS actually says about entering charts is this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable. Those ideas aren't synonymous and I wish people would stop conflating the two. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer Domeij[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally fails our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep soldier who holds the record for the most deployments to be killed in action -- 14 deployments! Of all the celebrities on wikipedia, this is the one you want to erase from history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durindaljb (talk • contribs)
Keep The start of the article reads: Kristoffer Bryan Domeij (October 5, 1982 – October 22, 2011) was a United States Army soldier who holds the record for the U.S. soldier with the most deployments to be killed in action. He served four deployments in Iraq and at least nine in Afghanistan. Sounds like a notable enough accomplish to get an article on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why someone would vote on an AFD discussion by looking at the lead, but ok. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Number of deployments is completely unreferenced.Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another in a long line of well-written, adequately sourced articles on long-dead soldiers dragged to AfD (WP:SOLDIER is an essay) with the same couple people voting to delete. jp×g 15:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mztourist mostly. The deployment record is impossible to verify and isn't notable in itself (and very likely debatable, but that's another discussion). Intothat darkness 17:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by jp. The deployment record is verified. WP:Verifiability. Repeatedly in multiple WP:RS. User:Intothatdarkness, that you missed that (and boldly asserted it could not be veriified) shows the cursory nature of your research inquiry, and the vapidity of your position. Article contents and new references establishes his notability. No compliance with WP:Before. Meets WP:GNG. WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Vapidity of my position"? Really? And your position about the deployment record's reliability seems to show a complete unfamiliarity with how these things work. Intothat darkness 22:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That you don't like the reliable sources does not make them magically disappear. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you rework it to state he holds the record within the Ranger Regiment for the most deployments before being KIA (which is how the sources frame it) it might be more believable. From my reading of what's been posted so far it's a very specific record that doesn't take the rest of JSOC or SOCOM into consideration. And even with that said, I'm not convinced it's notable. Intothat darkness 20:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete World records (or rather "American records") are not automatically notable. So far none of the "keep" voters has even addressed the question of why that particular record is notable. ApLundell (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (people) reads at the top On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. So yeah, this counts. Dream Focus 03:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Easily surpasses WP:GNG, which you have overlooked. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not overlooked any of the things the folk from ARS have accused me of. (They tend to make the same complaint about everyone who ever disagrees with them, so I won't take it personally.)

Being a record holder is not automatically notable. Virtually everybody is the superlative something. It is still required to show that their life or achievements are notable, not simply unique.

That hasn't been done for this article, and I don't believe it can. ApLundell (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AP, I am not a member of ARS and I am not here to attack you for disagreeing with me. You deserve your opinion and I am not here to convince you or anyone else that I am right and you are wrong. They will look at what we say and make their own assessment. That being said, I would like to point out that, in case you are unaware, Wikipedia does not concern itself with the notability of the action but the notability of the subject, unless the article is about the action. What I mean is that we are to look, not at the substance of the reliable sources but whether the subject receives adequate coverage in those sources. Wikipedia does not care how notable or distinguished the information is. His service record and length doesn't matter and doesn't have to be proved. Are the sources reliable and do they give him intellectually independent significant coverage? It could be about things you might feel are insignificant but if they give it adequate coverage and ties it to him then it can be included in the litmus test of notability. Wikipedia is indifferent to half the arguments made here from both sides except the facts based on policy, even begrudgedly, flawed policy. --ARose Wolf 18:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I reviewed all of the evidence presented both within the article and also conducting my own BEFORE search. This person does, indeed, fail WP:SOLDIER. In my mind this essay holds as much credence as all the SNG's that give subjects unfair advantages over other subjects like WP:NPROF. I digress, in looking at the sources a few things jump out. #1 - One argument here is that he is notable solely due to the length and number of combat tours. That may be the case on military bases and in the minds and hearts of those who knew him and value his service. Wikipedia, to be frank, is indifferent to feelings and emotions, only facts matter based on policy. I did not take into account his service record length or number of tours. #2 - I counted every reliable source that repeated the same information almost verbatim as one source as per criteria for multiple intellectually different sources. This still leaves the subject with coverage in reliable sources that may be similar but do contain intellectually different material as well, on top of the reliable sources that are wholly intellectually different. #3 - The subject received significant coverage in the reliable sources that did include him. Therefore, setting point 1 aside and taking points 2 and 3 into consideration, my assessment is that the subject passes criteria found in WP:N for inclusion. --ARose Wolf 17:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a misrepresentation of the Milhist guideline which starts "an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." and ends "a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeLeggett You are entitled to your opinion for sure. I am not here to change your view only show how and why I voted the way I did. As I stated, I didn't look at the Milhist guideline because many guidelines are based on presumption of notability which can be rebutted as is proper and we see here is why we have AfD's in the first place. I look solely at basic notability as described in the entirety of WP:N (including notes at the bottom) minus all the SNG's because most are highly unreliable and vague. I also conduct a BEFORE search for sources that may not be located in the article itself. There is significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are intellectually independent. The content of that coverage does not matter so long as it is significant and in a reliable source with exception of the sources in which the content is mostly identical or repeating the same information. According to note 4 at the bottom of WP:N, these sources are not intellectually different and therefore should be counted as one source. That is what I did in my search and still found enough to keep the article. If nothing else I am consistent in my approach across all AfD's and when I have made a mistake I will admit it. --ARose Wolf 15:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:GNG includes sources that exist, even if they aren't referenced in the article. See the shortcut on the right hand side of this comment. And if you had done WP:Before before proposing the AFD

Shortcuts

Actually I didn't add the references on the talk page. I rewrote the whole article.

(The above was moved for user 7&6=thirteen as it split an existing comment in half. It wasn't tagged and only they know where is should go and what context it was said in. I defer to them to decide its fate and may delete all of it and this following comment made by myself should they deem it necessary.) --ARose Wolf 15:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's deployed 14 times, but did he actually do anything other than not coming home in the end? Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*What he did or did not do is of no consequence to the policy on notability. The only criteria is significant coverage in reliable sources plus all the other words we can use to describe it. That's it. If the garbage man down the road gets that for simply being a garbage man then he deserves an article. I know, its an absurd example but sometimes when we provide that we show the simplistic depth of discrimination the policy allows for. It's not about what was done but what was reported and to what detail. --ARose Wolf 22:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts

Comment WP:GNG includes sources that exist, even if they aren't referenced in the article. See the shortcut on the right hand side of this comment. And if WP:Before was donebefore proposing the AFD, we wouldn't here at all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG even though fails WP:SOLDIER. Kolma8 (talk) 21:10, 31 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) Störm (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Adams (cricketer)[edit]

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

One of many cricket articles that fail WP:GNG big time. After four other AfDs on cricket players I started ended all in "redirect" (1 2 3), 4), I redirected some other articles with the same lack of individual notability. This was reverted for being "pointy disruption" by the article creator. So I'll nominate them for AfD instead, with no objection from my side to either deletion or redirection. I nominate them individually, as it may turn out that, despite my searches for sources, some of these can be shown to be actually notable. Fram (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NCRIC. The nom made a recent failed RfC to remove the said notability requirements. Since then, they have tried to circumnavigate this by making mass redirects instead. The nom has said that they "have no beef with Lugnuts", however following their failed RfC, have seemingly gone out of their way to target artciles I've worked on. Another RfC on sporting articles closed with the comments "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". And yet, there have been 25+ AfDs logged by Fram in a 15/20 minute window, indicating no WP:BEFORE was used. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For my reply, see here. Fram (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no qualms in creating them, as they meet the notability criteria, which you tried and failed to get rid of. And this is the issue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. Nominator didn't do a WP:BEFORE to show the opposite. The nominator nominated (automatically) a large amount of cricketeers. It would have been better to made a bunch of them in one nomination. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You have posted the same incorrect claims about me (which are not relevant to keeping or deleting this article anyway) at all these AfDs. I hope you will be kind enough to take into account my answer at one of them[25] and correct all your statements accordingly. Fram (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about him in my searches. WP:ATD is redirect. Störm (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers which is an established alternative to deletion and provides an opportunity to recover the text of this article should sources be found which mean that the chap can be shown to pass the GNG. Trivial pass of NCRIC has been established at multiple AfD as not sufficient to show that sources will exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC and generally notable as the second professor of classics at the University of Otago. Paora (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not only per WP:NCRIC but also GNG. The obituary and “Long Record” articles establish notability. Moonraker (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like the previous two people who have posted before me. It now officialy passes WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC with those sources to the University of Otago. HawkAussie (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full professors in New Zealand are notable and beyond that, sources show that GNG is met. Schwede 66 17:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Low traffic discussion with some apparent extant beef. No new !votes a week after its relisting. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Berry (cricketer)[edit]

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

One of many cricket articles that fail WP:GNG big time. After four other AfDs on cricket players I started ended all in "redirect" (1 2 3), 4), I redirected some other articles with the same lack of individual notability. This was reverted for being "pointy disruption" by the article creator. So I'll nominate them for AfD instead, with no objection from my side to either deletion or redirection. I nominate them individually, as it may turn out that, despite my searches for sources, some of these can be shown to be actually notable. Fram (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NCRIC. The nom made a recent failed RfC to remove the said notability requirements. Since then, they have tried to circumnavigate this by making mass redirects instead. The nom has said that they "have no beef with Lugnuts", however following their failed RfC, have seemingly gone out of their way to target artciles I've worked on. Another RfC on sporting articles closed with the comments "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". And yet, there have been 25+ AfDs logged by Fram in a 15/20 minute window, indicating no WP:BEFORE was used. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For my reply, see here. Fram (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no qualms in creating them, as they meet the notability criteria, which you tried and failed to get rid of. And this is the issue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. Nominator didn't do a WP:BEFORE to show the opposite. The nominator nominated (automatically) a large amount of cricketeers. It would have been better to made a bunch of them in one nomination. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers which is an established alternative to deletion and provides an opportunity to recover the text of this article should sources be found which mean that the chap can be shown to pass the GNG. Trivial pass of NCRIC has been established at multiple AfD as not sufficient to show that sources will exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:53, 27 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 East Pakistan first-class cricketers. as WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas Ahmed (East Pakistan cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago, I reminded this editor about the closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NCRIC since matches against touring sides are not be considered to be the "highest domestic or international level"; even allowing for a nominal NCRIC pass, by consensus that would only provide an extremely weak presumption of notability that is extremely unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here). This also fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases (including scorecards that do not count as SIGCOV); no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of East Pakistan first-class cricketers seems the best solution here as the article title isn't likely to ever be used for anything else. This is consistent with a range of similar articles over the past few years. I'm not opposed to deletion as such given the lack of sources - a technical pass of NCRIC but failure of GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 1 game is nowhere near enough for encyclopedic inclusion when failing other guidelines, as shown in 100+ sports AFDs. Geschichte (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of East Pakistan first-class cricketers - no evidence of the sort of coverage required for a stand-alone article but ATDs must be considered Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers. Both "keep" and "delete" !voters have agreed that a redirect would be a suitable compromise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood Zamir[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Or at worst, redirect to List of Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. Nominator didn't do a WP:BEFORE to show the opposite. The nominator nominated (automatically) a large amount of cricketeers. It would have been better to made a bunch of them in one nomination. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 8 appearances at the highest domestic level. We really need to start up a taskforce for South Asian cricketers, encouraging editors from those regions to join and help expand these articles where possible. StickyWicket (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers until and unless someone actually demonstrates notability instead of simply claiming it based on a disputed guideline which only presumes notability as well. When such a presumption is challenged, it shouldn't simply be repeated, it should be shown to be false. Oh, and claims that "the nominator didn't do a WP:BEFORE" should be considered personal attacks unless the one making that claim can show that a simple WP:BEFORE search would have yielded useful results. In this case, no such results are to be found. Fram (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to List of Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers. Subject passes NCRIC, but by consensus that only provides a very weak presumption of notability that is unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here). Fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers. The number of matches played raises some questions about whether or not notability can be presumed, but given work I've done on other teams I'd suggest very strongly that this is not necessarily the case at this level, even for players on teams where there is very clear sourcing available. Get to 20 appearances and I'd be happy to be swayed by a presumption of sources argument. As it is we have a technical pass of NCRIC but not apparent sourcing at GNG level and no linked Urdu language article. If that were present then, again, I could be swayed to assume there was likely to be sourcing (perhaps someone with Urdu could check and see if there is an article but it isn't linked). Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:47, 27 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 Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers. Daniel (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Najam Wahab[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Or at worst, redirect to List of Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. Nominator didn't do a WP:BEFORE to show the opposite. The nominator nominated (automatically) a large amount of cricketeers. It would have been better to made a bunch of them in one nomination. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to List of Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers. Subject trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers - the name sees rare enough that there's unlikely to be an alternative use for the article title. Trivial pass of NCRIC but failure of GNG - and I checked, so the assumption that BEFORE hasn't been done is a little disingenuous above - suggests that we're not going to find suitable sources. In these cases redirecting to a list is a viable alternative to deletion which has been used on a range of articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, doesn't meet the GNG, and NCRIC is a disputed guideline which claims notability for hundreds of cricketers without significant coverage. Fram (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers - no evidence that this player actually ever had significant coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Varadoor[edit]

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

Other than winning a non notable award given by a private organisation, the person is not notable for any events. Could not find any more reliable sources to prove his notability. The subject does not have enough coverage, hence fails to establish notability criteria. Could not also find any reliable sources which are independent of the article subject covering in depth about the subject Kashmorwiki (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Kashmorwiki (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Kashmorwiki (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's listed as the "news editor in chief" of an 87-year old paper with 500,000 circulation. Does anyone know whether or not that's the top editorial position at the paper? If it is, he's highly likely to be notable and I would strongly discourage anyone from !voting delete before we've had someone who speaks Malayalam do a thorough search for sources. If he's just the head of the news section of the paper, that's more borderline, but still perfectly plausible that sources in Malayalam exist. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Did some looking around; on their about page, they don't list their current chief editors, only former ones, so it's unclear whether Varadoor holds this position. On Chandrika (newspaper), the "editor" is listed as C.P. Saidalavi, though I can't find a reliable reference for that. Both Saidalavi and Varadoor seem equally possible from what I can find. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 18:29, 10 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 14:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to ^[1], this paper is a propaganda paper of a political party. The website doesn't list this individual as an editor. – NirvanaToday^t@lk 15:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inbound marketing[edit]

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

pure jargon, non-encyclopedic; the relevant encyclopedic aspects are covered in multiple articles DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%, this article is rubbish and it's content is far too minimal to warrant an article. Definitely should go Chariotsacha (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs cleaned up, and more references but the google book search finds multiple hits that use this subject as all or part of their title in the same way it is used in this article Inbound Marketing and SEO & Inbound Marketing Book & Inbound Marketing For Dummies Jeepday (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:ITEXISTS. It's definitely a term; it's probably not a relevant one. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we never published original research, and we avoid articles on neologisms. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as unencyclopedic and per Bearian. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if there is an encyclopedic topic buried under all that verbiage, WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Digital marketing. The sourcing doesn't seem to support even a stub article, but a redirect seems appropriate based on what links to it. We should also take a look at Inbound marketing automation if this one isn't notable. Redoryxx (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roscoe, Lassen County, California[edit]

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

In an effort to see how much work can be put into deleting a spot which is not on maps and which is only cited to a source which has been fairly consistently misrepresented as to its characterization of the places whose names it discusses, we are now back at AfD after not considering it on the first round and denying a PROD on the basis that it was discussed in an AfD. The reason we have started PRODding these is that spots in California sourced only to Durham have almost without exception proven to not be settlements. There's no reason to think this is a settlement either, and there's no other route to meeting notability, or even probing that was a real place of any sort, except that someone produces real documentation of it and its nature. Searching produces all the usual clickbait and mirrors, and a bucketload of false hits, but not a single hit about a place in Lassen County, and a post office isn't enough in the era of 4th class post offices in peoples houses. I have now typed several times the number of words in the article itself, and that's several more times than we should have had to waste on this noplace. Mangoe (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Should have been deleted the first time around at AFD. Durham mentions "Roscoe post office" under the entry for Madeline, without saying it was a settlement. Reywas92^Talk 19:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V and post office amounts to nothing. Geschichte (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Patterson Harris[edit]

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

non notable lawyer and unsuccessful political candidate. some of his clients may have been notable, but that does not make him notable DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because California has a jungle primary does not make it so everyone in the primary is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability. I agree this should be deleted, but I question that representing a notable defendant does not add to a lawyer's potential notability. I think it's just one factor. In any case, he does not pass my standards for notable lawyers, at this time, subject to re-creation when needed. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and is not independently notable outside of his campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Group[edit]

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

Almost every reference here is a mere placement on a list, and none of the lists confer notability. Business league tables are not a RS for anything. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kékéflipnote[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources are as follows:

Tweet from the artist confirming his birthday (WP:SPS)
Brief profile story from The Verge
Another profile from a website called Creative Lives in Progress which vaguely defines itself as a "creative careers resource"
A blog post from the website of a Scandinavian furry convention announcing the artist as a special guest (WP:UGC)
A mostly passing mention of him in an online magazine owned by International Data Group

The only article that could easily be considered significant, reliable coverage is the one from The Verge, as it shows up on the WP:RSPSOURCES list, but that's only one. benǝʇᴉɯ 03:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the strength of this search for the artist's legal name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep I had to do quite a bit of scrolling to get through this profile in Le Monde. There are other supporting sources... Les Jours, a podcast/interview in French. Here is another interview, this time at the Centre national du cinéma et de l'image animée. (Also, the Twitter source for his date of birth is just fine, as it meets WP:TWEET.) Possibly (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep marginally notable, per Eastmain. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:28, 27 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Faulconer[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER, former PFC awarded a Legion of Honour in 2016. There are various levels to the Legion of Honour and he would have been awarded the Chevalier, of which more than 74,000 have been awarded and since 2014 they have been commonly awarded to living Allied veterans of the liberation of France, so doesn't satisfy #1 of SOLDIER. Fails WP:GNG as he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mztourist. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the awards are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this one took me a while, as I couldn't figure out the level of the LoH. But, since foreign nationals who served in WWII are only eligible for the Chevalier, that would make sense. At that level, this is almost like the Silver Star, and far less discerning than the Distinguished Service Cross (United States), neither of which confer auto notability. Without that, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER are passed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Audi Ur-S4 / Ur-S6[edit]

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

Redundant to Audi S4 and Audi S6 and an implausible redirect. The article directs readers to the two aforementioned articles and provides only a brief explanation of what they are. The cars are covered in greater detail at those two articles, leaving little point to this page. Normally, redirecting would be the solution, but the article title doesn't lend itself to being redirected to one or the other specifically, so the most reasonable course of action would be to simply delete this page. Furthermore, the article itself states that the "Ur-" nomenclature is unofficial, suggesting that the title is a neologism of sorts anyway. Sable232 (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Sable232 (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sable232 (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10 as redundant to the existing articles on the cars. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and Bushranger // Timothy :: talk 03:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article seems to have quite a few incoming links, but it is linked to on both Template:Audi and Template:Audi vehicles timeline (North America). It might be a good idea then to remove it from those to see if there are any other incoming links to decide if it's worth redirecting this somewhere, or changing those links. A7V2 (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - any incoming links that do not originate with the templates should be redirected to the appropriate articles when suitable. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 04:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: I have removed the link to this page from the two templates mentioned above, and that has eliminated nearly all of the incoming links in article space. The remainder are either under a "See also" section or could be easily retargeted or removed.
The article has existed since 2005; is it really eligible for speedy deletion under A10? I didn't expect that it would be, not having been recently created. --Sable232 (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

René Ferrero[edit]

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

This article was moved to draft space by reviewer User:Inexpiable as not ready for article space, not verifying eligibility under rugby league notability. It was then however also created in article space, apparently due to an edit conflict, rather than to any attempt to game the system. The draft was then history-merged into the article. If this article can be made ready for article space, then it can be kept via Heymann test. Otherwise this article can be draftified. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails Wikipedia:GNG. Inexpiable (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:RLN having appeared for his country at the 1957 Rugby League World Cup. All 3 of the matches he played at the world cup were against notable opposition also. The article needs improving and not deleting. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes RLN and WP:SPORTCRIT due to playing at the highest possible level (World Cup) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per WP:RLN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:29, 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. Worthwhile endeavor, but unfortunately fails our notability guidelines. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBBeat[edit]

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

No evidence this meets WP:GNG, also completely unsourced. SK2242 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find much. P anini ^🥪 14:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and it looks like a random 2005 leftover on WP. Wario-Man ^talk 13:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Seems made-up. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IceWelder [✉] 20:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keeping its significance in mind it is better if the article is improved. Stangpa (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stangpa: Can you show multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage of the subject? SK2242 (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try if there are. My point is, it is a significant article, and keeping this live will be helpful for general masses, particularly for a section of society. The reason I am supporting the article is; it seems that it is not for any advertising purpose or maintained by anyone for any profit. I don't know why Wikipedians waste time by nominating such an article created around one and half a decade ago.Stangpa (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's definitely a real game as per this but I don't see it being notable enough for an article, sadly. Just doesn't seem to have coverage from third-party sources. Really cool idea, though Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Four Points by Sheraton Tripoli[edit]

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

Not notable hotel. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Besides the source (which I don't think is a WP:RS), I could only find industry publications mentioning it briefly before 2011 as part of Four Points by Sheraton's expansion strategy. It therefore does not seem to pass WP:GNG. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion and my own standards for hotels. This is an entirely run of the mill chain hotel that is not covered extensively in guide books. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 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 redirect to Kingdom Heirs. Consensus is that the subject isn't independently notable from the band. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Martin (singer)[edit]

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

Not independently notable. The award nomination are in a narrow field and fan-voted. Other awards are either as part of a group or minor recognition. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the band is notable, he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing written about how the artist is notable separate from the band. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kingdom Heirs. Seems likely a logical redirect. He's gotten a little coverage, but it appears to be entirely with him related to his role in the band, and the coverage isn't separate from the band. But his role in the bad appears to have been of some significance. Hog Farm _Talk 06:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kingdom Heirs per Hog Farm Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Joniec[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. A priest only known for how he died. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Kittyclassified (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found few sources: biography/obituary(?) in a minor Polish newspaper (Dziennik Gazeta Prawna), another biography published by the Institute of National Rememberance [26], tiny biography is a guidebook which considers his birthplace worth noting ([27]), longer biography at the webpage of the religious order he was a member of [28] (mirror?, tiny bio/obit in a major newsportal [29], longer obit (bio) in a major Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza [30], biography maintained by the municipal government portal for the region he lived in [31], and a biography on the pages of the Museum of Polish History [32]. This is not exhaustive, I see obits for him in several other reliable Polish newspapers. While there is a political aspect that likely contributed to the government-sponsored promotion of his bios and obituaries (he died in the even which became a major political controversy in Poland), there is sufficient coverage of him out there to make him notable. PS. It is also not correct to say he didn't do anything notable besides dying, he was an activist and an originator of, for example, the notable pl:Dąb Pamięci initiative. PPS. He is also a recipient of the Order of Polonia Restituta which is a major Polish award.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for consideration of sources provided later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotrus, seems to meet GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:34, 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 speedy deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 11:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NewsBureau Nepal[edit]

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

Initially nominated WP:CSD#A7 by JJPMaster. It passes the A7 requirement, so I removed the CSD and sent it to AFD.

JPPMaster added the following note to the CSD: Also note that this page appears to be a cut-n-paste move from draftspace. I already noted on Talk:NewsBureau Nepal that the same author created the rejected draft Draft:NewsBureau 12. A different editor, Snow Burnt, created the "copy and paste predecessor" to this page, Draft:NewsBureau Nepal, which was declined[33] prior to being significantly changed by Ranjansharma23. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Per A7... of course it falls under A7 Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 01:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per G11, and if not speedy then Delete because it fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Pahunkat (talk) 09:51, 27 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 03:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft systems[edit]

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

There may be grounds for an article here, but I'm not sure this is it. An ambiguous premise, no sources. This would appear to be nothing more than a cursory and incomplete list of aircraft components (WP:SOAPBOX). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are no grounds for a nomination and I am sure that it is faulty. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST, a reasonably thorough search for sources is expected and it is apparent that this has not been done as a quick browse immediately finds entire books on the topic including Design and Development of Aircraft Systems, Stability and Control of Aircraft Systems and Introduction to Unmanned Aircraft Systems. This appears to be nothing more than a cursory and incomplete drive by. See also WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it stands it makes very little sense to me (aircraft engineer/pilot). The title would be valid for an overview article using summary style format. What is missing is a parent category to round up all the aircraft system articles, I could create that and also work on the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. I have completely revised the text, there is now a citation in every section. I have added its parent navbox which should have been done years ago. There was also a Commons category with the same title (now linked) so it could be jazzed up with images in the future. I have also created a category (Category:Aircraft systems) which has this article as the eponymous page. There are some systems missing (weapons and emergency (ejection seats etc)) but they can be added. Hopefully that should be enough to close this nomination. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of the improvements done by Nimbus. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - excellent work by Nimbus in bringing this article up to code. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:34, 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. Daniel (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paresh Lamba[edit]

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

Promotional and non-notable BLP. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Sikha[edit]

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

Promotional and non-notable BLP. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article on a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the four sources in the article, I found one in the Deccan Chronicle, one in the New Indian Express, and one in the Indian Express dating from 2009 to 2019 so this is a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, found a number of credible sources about the subject and have added them to the article. Luciapop (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article is good to go for Wikipedia, the mentioned references and sources put subject on the stronger side to stay on Wikipedia. Additionally, I have found other credible sources about subject which I am mentioning here as below:

^[2] ^[3]

I request other editors to review this and add these links to article to make it the better version Syoz (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC) — Syoz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ "E Ahamed, consummate politician, skilled negotiator and football fan". Hindustan Times. 2017-02-01. Retrieved 2021-01-17.
^ https://epaper.ntnews.com/home/index?date=18/02/2020&eid=1&pid=128653
^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/fashion-and-beauty/250619/for-green-fashion.html

Your commentary is likely not to be considered if you aren't familiar with the relevant notability guidelines and arguing your position based on whether the subject meets those criteria or not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone would like the article restored to user or draft space, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AD Singh[edit]

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

Promotional and non-notable BLP. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article already has seven sources. Can the nominator please explain what’s wrong with them? Mccapra (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

none of the links show anything substantial to meet WP:ARTIST, WP:NMODEL. These are rather just run-of-the-mill page-3 listing of pics. RationalPuff (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are reference links and videos to substantiate him being a fashion designer worked with credible models and actresses at Fashion Shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:5090:1685:7458:3E99:E036:C2C3 (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reference links from various leading Indian News websites establish that this designer has worked with other renowned WP:ARTIST, WP:NMODEL and qualifies for WP:ARTIST. His work and designs are also available on various social media platforms under verified profiles. They do not seem to be just run-of-the-mill page-3 listings but actual fashion designs with qualified WP:NMODEL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:5090:1685:6D97:A8F:DB70:172A (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. Article space should redirect to other AD Singh. LK (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AD Singh is a well known designer in India and his name coincides with another known restaurateur, hence Wikipedia should keep both the pages active. Designer AD Singh as a celebrity is having verified social media accounts (Twitter and Instagram) and dedicated Google profile, so that his high net-worth customers are not duped by fake profiles. So it important to have his wiki page which can help people to identify the correct individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:5179:D1EE:DE59:DDFD:3684:2D6A (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LK Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frances MacKeith[edit]

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

I created this page in 2018, but looking back at it I'm not seeing any coverage to establish notability. Obits in The Guardian and The Independent are both written by her daughter, so can't be considered independent, other coverage is either unreliable or local news. Maybe a redirect to her father, but I'm reluctant to redirect non-notable people to other people... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, according to the ODNB, she edited a collection of her father's letters, so maybe a redirect would be apt? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obituary in a major national newspaper has always been held as equalling notability. Who wrote it is irrelevant. What's important is that the editor chose to run it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV and Necrothesp's cogent argument that an obituary in a newspaper of record is a sign of notability. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter nonsense to suggest that an obituary written by the subject's daughter is sufficient for notability, which auotmatically fails the "independent" criterion of GNG, regardless of where it was published. This is part of the The Guardian's Other Lives section, specifically for people who led rich lives but are not neccesarily notable – all written and submitted by family members. She was an activist but nothing in this biography established her role in the protests or coverage of her. Reywas92^Talk 20:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I take the point about the "Other Lives" obit, though it does seem to have been published in the Independent as well (here). I have added a couple of references and I think there are probably more out there; enough to pass WP:BASIC in my view. I cannot see the full version of this article in The Friend, and it looks as if she is mentioned in this Guardian obit of her husband (I don't have access). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacyarg (talk • contribs)
Keep per WP:HEY, and I just added a BBC News report that features MacKeith's role in a protest and a court proceeding that followed, which along with the recently-added Daily Echo report about her protest history, helps support WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After new sources were introduced, two delete !votes switched to keep, and all !votes that came in after relisting were keep votes. Consensus is that new sources listed here demonstrate that the subject meets the GNG, and should be added to the article. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Barnes (coach)[edit]

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

Rank-and-file football coach, nothing to suggest notability, fails WP:GNG / WP:NCOLLATH -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable low level assistant football coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Onel5969. Sourcing in article currently is not independent, and my searches don't reveal significant coverage in reliable, independent sources required to pass under WP:GNG. I have open mind if others' turn up such coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ejgreen77: Would appreciate your taking a second look based on the new coverage brought forward below. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A coordinator for one of the biggest college football programs in the country. Notable enough that Coach Barnes is included in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_coaches . As a football coach, I can absolutely confirm that this is a worth while article, and I will also work to improve that article when I get a little more time. I had actually already started to create it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbowers77 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to turn this AfD around, you will need to come up with some examples of significant coverage in reliable independent publications. Without that, this one is headed strongly to deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple examples: https://www.si.com/college/ohiostate/football/matt-barnes-values-relationships-to-be-effective , https://247sports.com/college/ohio-state/Article/Ohio-State-Buckeyes-football-Matt-Barnes-hybrid-of-the-coaching-staff-one-on-one-interview-special-teams-defensive-backs-130580532/ , https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football-recruiting/2020/05/114282/matt-barnes-has-worked-his-way-up-quickly-from-the-lower-levels-of-college-football-coaching-to-become — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbowers77 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the elevenwarriors source is reliable, it looks like an indie sports blog. The other two pieces are primarily interviews, and, while reliable, don't really add much from a WP:GNG standpoint. We need sources discussing him, not interviewing him. Hog Farm _Talk 06:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The SI.com piece clearly represents significant coverage in a reliable source. I respectfully but absolutely disagree with HogFarm that it doesn't add much from a GNG standpoint; the fact that this feature article on Barnes includes quotes from the subject is ordinary journalistic practice and does not in any way, shape or form undermine its qualification as significant coverage. That said, I do agree with HogFarm in questioning whether elevenwarriors.com is a reliable source. If you can come up with other significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (such as the Columbus Dispatch or Baltimore Sun), I, and perhaps others, could be persuaded to change to "Keep". Cbl62 (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbowers77: Actually, here is another feature story from a major newspaper. Getting close to flipping to a Keep vote. Ping me if you are able to find anything else. Cbl62 (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this has some coverage. After a reread, I have to change my statement about the SI piece, as it does include some significant non-interview coverage in places. And some more here. Hog Farm _Talk 15:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: - I'm not Cbowers77, but I'll ping you for the new sources I found. The Frederick News Post isn't the strongest source, but the Chicago Tribune is pretty good, IMO. Hog Farm _Talk 15:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I was trying to ping the person who made the unsigned comments and believe, based on page history, that person to be Cbowers77. Cbl62 (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Between the Baltimore Sun, SI, and Chicago Tribune pieces, I think there's enough here for notability. Hog Farm _Talk 15:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Switching to keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH (prong 3) and significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, including (1) this from The Baltimore Sun; (2) this from Sports Illustrated; (3) this from the Frederick Post, (4) this from the Clevelenad Plain Dealer, and (5) this from The Washington Post. Nice work by Cbowers77 and User:Hog Farm in bringing the necessary coverage to the discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep per additional sources discovered above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep appears to pass WP:GNG from sources found during this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Breakfast[edit]

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

Textbook WP:GARAGE band. Mostly unsourced or cited to self-published or minor local news pieces. I don't think this article is salvageable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Retallack[edit]

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

This appears to be about a non-notable person (per WP:GNG/WP:BIO). The references given don't appear to be in-depth about Retallack (mostly passing mentions), and a quick search for sources online doesn't appear to bring anything up. A lot of the content itself is unsourced, and the article appears to have been written by Retallack's spouse (Gregory Retallack/@Retallack - Gregory's article lists "Diane" as his wife, and see all the COI discussion at the talk there) - I know that's not a reason to delete by itself, but just felt it was important to point it out. Seagull123 Φ 00:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 00:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 00:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 00:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: PINGing @Retallack to ask if they would like to leave their views on this deletion discussion, as they keep editing the article, but haven't left their thoughts here yet. Seagull123 Φ 16:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Hello Seagull123 / i think right now they've Improved the Article and Provided Enough Resources. According to What Provided The Person Has notability I think now we have to Remove The Deletion? Thank you. 🌸 Sakura Hana 💖 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakura emad: I still don't think that the improvements made to the article since I nominated it for deletion are enough to address the notability concerns. The references still appear to not actually be in-depth sources about Retallack, which in my understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, is what would be needed to show she's notable, so for that reason, I won't be withdrawing my nomination for deletion. Seagull123 Φ 19:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG as shown by WP:BEFORE and sources cited in the article are not RSs. Luciapop (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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