< January 05	January 07 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhamakapella[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG and WP:BAND. All cited sources are either self-publications or trivial references. Bestagon (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only found local references in before search (the Observer is the uni newspaper in the same uni where the group are based). Pulisi (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 17:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seem to be notable within the acapella genre going by the awards won and by the secondary coverage in the reception section, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the reception section is mostly references to either 1) sources published by the university or 2) open online forums. NBAND has a pretty high bar for awards conferring notability (i.e., the Grammy's or the Juno Awards). Bestagon (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the reviews are from this site here which seems to be a website with a staff rather than an open online forum, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but anyone can submit their album to be reviewed by volunteer reviewers, per the link you sent. If that confers notability I can be a notable singer within three weeks (per the site)! Bestagon (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Point taken but I still think the article is notable within the acapella genre going by the awards won. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The A cappella genre is challenging; I'll go on the awards won, and say that yes, WP:NBAND sets the bar high, but sometimes we have to allow groups to just scrape through. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Green Eggs and Ham. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Seuss: Green Eggs and Ham (video game)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG, and a quick search for sources leaves you with none. If you don't agree with this, keep in mind that merging to Green Eggs and Ham is also an option. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 00:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Green Eggs and Ham sounds like the right idea, per nom. - Astrophobe (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Astrophobe. IceWelder [✉] 08:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Astrophobe, a good way. Chompy Ace 10:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Astrophobe, and add the relevant content to Green Eggs and Ham#Adaptations. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Astrophobe. // Timothy :: talk 00:22, 10 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 02:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Stenta[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and coverage not yet sufficient for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. A search provided me with coverage of his appointment for Adelaide and then some brief quotes from him talking about his players in match reports and the like. There is this interview on the W-League website but that's about as close to significant coverage as we seem to get. Spiderone 23:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 10:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Goodship[edit]

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

Does not yet seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL; all results found during a WP:BEFORE search were brief quotes from him about his team in match reports and the like. There is no information available online from which we can build a biography from because Goodship himself does not seem to be explored in-depth. Spiderone 23:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not mean notability guidelines. One source with trivial coverage. Eyebeller 23:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football person. Wikipedia is not meant to be Footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLAG Linux and GNU[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Discontinued Linux distribution with no updates for nearly a decade CallLetters (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CallLetters (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CallLetters (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CallLetters (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia actually does keep articles about subjects that are of historical importance, not just ongoing events. This subject meets WP:GNG and thus qualifies to be retained. - Ahunt (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep despite inadequate nominator's rationale, per 1st nomination, ~~this is not a notable distribution.~~ On second look at article sources, seems to meet GNG. Elizium23 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains multiple independent, reliable and sign sources hence meeting WP:GNG. Eyebeller 23:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being discontinued is irrelevant for meeting WP:GNG. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Barely meets GNG. The Brixton Linux Action Group sound quite a bit more interesting than their distribution, so I could see myself supporting a content move. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG plus when sources are evaluated again NSOFTWARE (essay) Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Reliability and significance of sources they demonstrate N. // Timothy :: talk 12:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aid People Change Nigeria Charity and Orphanage Organisation[edit]

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

Please note that this is not my area of expertise. With that being said, I saw no evidence of this organisation meeting WP:GNG or WP:NORG; no evidence of WP:SIRS during a search. Spiderone 14:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per Spiderone rationale, it doesn't appear to meet WP:NGO at the moment and it feels like the organization merely wants more awareness, sadly Wikipedia isn’t a platform for promotion even though the NGO are of good service to humanity. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per Spiderone the article is not seeking promotions on Wikipedia as stated by our amiable Celestina007 . It seems to have meet WP:NGO . Not all local radios and Televisions has an article on Wikipedia, the organisation is notable, for Lord Mayors, state Governors and iconic singers to recon with them as an ambassador means alot, stated in BBC pidgin and other national radios. Secondly they have reached 2.3 million volunteers in Africa, they have consistently protested against social ills in Nigeria, a country with 200 million inhabitant, i have seen many articles remained on Wikipedia with only one written line, compared to what i have written about the organisation. Let's cite Don Jazzy for example, a Nigerian famous musician with over 300 reliable news coverages, yet our editors couldn't see sources to verify the article. We must all work to make Wikipedia a reference website for Education and history purposes NOTICE501— Note to closing admin: NOTICE501 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Are you sure you read my Del !vote rationale correctly? Celestina007 (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From a thorough search the organization does not satisfy our notability guidelines for WP:NORG or WP:SIGCOV. Lord Grandwell (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opal|zukor^(discuss) 22:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search did not find anything to meet WP:GNG while there are a number of references, they are mostly minor mentions. Jeepday (talk) 18:15, 12 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. Consensus that this topic meets WP:CREATIVE. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Quintana[edit]

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

not yet notable -- these are all student awards DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our current inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable Northern Escapee (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Notable playwrights and poets from marginalized populations are often young. She is prolific and award winning. Lambda awards are highly competitive and sought after by ambitious creative Queer writers in all genres, regardless of age or educational status. I believe that Christina Quintana has a solid professional future ahead of her, and as Wikipedia articles are continually updated, I believe we will have more to write about this writer as she progresses in her career. RachelWex (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment While I also lean towards keep as the $\Lambda$ awards notable enough under wp:creative, I'm curious why you feel that a writer's potential professional future is relevant to the article's notability? BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 18:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am very disappointed that administrator DGG has falsely denigrated Christina Quintana's honors as "all student awards." They are nothing of the sort. As Wikipedia explains, "There are many different kinds of fellowships," including financial grants that may or not be restricted to students. In the case of Christina Quintana, it is clear from the references in her BLP's Awards section that these fellowships were granted to foster her already evident literary accomplishments, not to support her as a student. A fair reading of each cited source confirms that the Lambda Literary Award, Van Lier New Voices Fellowship, Arch and Bruce Brown Foundation 2017 Playwriting Competition $500 Honorable Mention prize, New York's Playwrights Realm 2017-18 writing fellowship, and MacDowell Colony Award are solid professional endowments, not mere student awards. NedFausa (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps I should have said, "award for the development of someone who is not yet notable". (and an honourable mention is not a prize. It's a consolation for not winning a prize.) Perhaps she does have" a solid professional future ahead of her" -- and at that point, an encyclopedia should have an article. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: Please stop misrepresenting the facts. As I wrote above, the Arch and Bruce Brown Foundation 2017 Playwriting Competition $500 Honorable Mention prize is a prize of $500. It is not an empty consolation. NedFausa (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per RachelWex. The Lambda Literary Foundation awards are high recognition in LGBTQ+ literature. = paul2520 💬 03:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Point of discussion: Whether the subject of the article meets the inclusion criteria, based on the awards she has received.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opal|zukor^(discuss) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NedFausa. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The $\Lambda$ awards for this author's work seems to fit wp:creative's recommendation that the author's work has "won significant critical attention", namely from the awarding literary society. I suppose an argument could be made for the Lambda Literary Society is too niche or is too much of a special interest, but considering there already is an uncontested wikipage for the Lambda Literary Award, I don't think it's going to fly. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 18:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 12:22, 10 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 Sam Qualiana. Consensus that this topic is not presently notable for a stand-alone article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Effect (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable future film, per WP:NFF, no evidence that this film is going to be released any time soon, production has not been particularly notable (reported, yes but most reports have been mostly reprints of press releases, no in-depth coverage), no updates to production since 2016 BOVINEBOY2008 15:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sam Qualiana. It'd be worth covering to some degree in his article, but this seems to have fallen into development hell considering that there's been no news of a release since 2016. If/when the film releases, this can be restored then. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as described above. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:33, 9 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. Consensus that this meets the relevant policies and guidelines to be kept. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancelled X68000 games[edit]

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

Please see the deletion rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled games for Sony consoles. Group noms haven't gone well for me in the past, so I am nominating other lists like this individually but the same rationale applies to each. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games for other noms. I don't see a redirect as useful, but they are cheap and I have no objection to one. // Timothy :: talk 20:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - As i've stated on the 3DO, Jaguar, Lynx, N-Gage and Genesis discussions, a redirect is better than getting all of that info being wiped out completely... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom rationale does not apply. The argument to delete on the other articles was that "List of cancelled games on <platforms by company>" was a bad scope, not "List of cancelled games on <platform>". TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same as most of other cancelled games nominated for deletion: sufficient notability, reliable sources and good scope. Deltasim (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of this is just a WP:GAMECRUFT magnet. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request for sources: @Deltasim and TarkusAB: the subject of the article is "List of cancelled X68000 games", not an individual game. SIGCOV requires the subject be addressed directly and indepth. None of the sources in the article address the subject directly and indepth. Would you list some sources you found with SIGCOV for the subject discussing it as a group, not mentions about individual list items? // Timothy :: talk 16:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled Sega Genesis games. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well-sourced and clearly-defined list of appropriate scope. Phediuk (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opal|zukor^(discuss) 22:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list meets policies generally, but the automatically updating counter is probably not necessary. Could also use some more fleshing-out of the surrounding prose. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't see why other AfDs should be used as a precedent for this AfD. Azuredivay (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the prior lists that are mentioned in the nom, this list makes the effort to source that the game was either cancelled or considered to be cancelled by a third-party source. The issue on the prior lists was the presumption that "no game after X years" == "cancelled" and providing no affirmative sourcing to show that otherwise. --Masem (t) 20:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the close of all the other recently kept similar articles. The precedent us that it’s not acceptable to list per company, but is acceptable per platform. Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Vision 2030[edit]

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

~~Government guideline which does not meet WP:GNG- lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete government press release DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Added a lot more non-government sources that talk about Egypt Vision 2030 (SDS Egypt). Ziad Rashad (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The additions were subsequently deleted by an administrator due to COPYVIO. Also note that the above user is the article's creator. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of non-government sources, clear keep -- its a long-term plan, so clearly should be keep -- plenty of sources (probably even more in arabic, Sadads (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article shouldn't be deleted, but instead should be improved; probably like this other similar article Saudi Vision 2030. Ben5218 (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I agree with Ben, the article is in its very first stages as well. Also I'm wondering, when does this come to an end? I think the call for deletion was very unnecessary in the first place for such an important/independent topic. Ziad Rashad (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I generally give a bit more leeway on notability to government projects - while there aren't many English-language sources covering the topic, it's clearly notable. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This plan has gained considerable attention from the foreign policy intelligentsia. [1], [2] (though the second source is admittedly weaker). BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 18:39, 8 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PT Perusahaan Perkebunan London Sumatra Indonesia[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independant, reliable sources. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 22:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 22:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 22:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - sources aren't significant coverage, only discussing stock prices. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the other language page is about the same as the English page, neither has claims or references to meeting WP:GNG I searched, and did not find anything notable to add. Jeepday (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searching yields this and that prospectus, investments and properties of this company and the stock price. Not much of this meets WP:GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Klemens Zamoyski[edit]

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

Does not meet any criteria for WP:NOTABLE. Two very brief sentences. Has been flagged since 2009 asking for sources. Subject appears to have done nothing during the 20 years of his life. Smerus (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this is pretty much a WP:SUBSTUB the subject is notable. I've added two sources, a local newspaper and better, a book where he seems to have a few page-long biography (although I can't verify this due to snippet view). A search for "Klemens Zamoyski"+1767 on google books shows a bunch more mentions, some of which appear non-trivial, although again, we run into the issue that most Polish books are available only with snippet view since Google doesn't care to deal with non-English copyright. If one had access to a Polish library it shouldn't be too hard to expand this into something longer, as there are indications the subject did, in fact, do something in his life. Well, at least a palace was named after him. PS. Also found an entry for him in a local/online encyclopedia [3] but not sure if it is reliable, it doesn't cite any sources, and the date of birth differs from ours. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how you conclude that "the subject is notable". You don't give any indication of what your possible (and maybe unreliable) Polish references say about him. Possible (and unreliable) references in Polish can't really count here. Of the two 'sources' you have added to the article, one says that KZ was an enegetic landlord, but there is no indication that it goes on to say anything else; the other, which incidentally gives a different birthdate and therefore does not substantiate the article text, specifically translates "he did not perform any significant administrative or state functions." The source you mention above, which you admit may not be reliable, tells us that he improved local forest management, made an unsuccesful attempt to improve trade with Armenia, and forbade wooden construction. Er.....that's it. --Smerus (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Smerus, As I said, my argument that he is likely notable rests on significant Google Book hits and snippet views. Granted, I cannot guarantee that they all contain significant coverage, but many read like logical excerpts of such lengthier coverage. For example: [4] "Klemens Zamoyski ( 1738 – 1767 ) . Gdy umarł ordynat Tomasz Antoni Zamoyski w 1751 roku , jego syn Klemens liczył 13 lat . Otrzymał staranne wychowanie w kraju i za granicą . Jego guwernerem był Francuz Charles de Sempol, pułkownik saski.". or [5] "Klemens Zamoyski odebrał bardzo staranne wykształcenie , był eleganckim młodzieńcem i namalowano szereg jego wizerunków, odznaczających się dużymi walorami dekoracyjnymi, a nawet artystycznymi. Te konterfekty, na których został przedstawiony w młodym wieku, są na ogół błędnie datowane, ponieważ badacze przyjmują, że VIII ordynat żył w latach 1737-1767, gdy w rzeczywistości urodzil się w 1738 roku." It seems clear that there are at least several reliable sources out there in which his life is discussed for at least several paragraphs, which IMHO satisfies GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He was a notable landowner and the Lord of the Zamość estate. He also owned the Ploskirovsk and Tarnów. So he may pass WP:NPOL?. However the number of Polish language editors is tiny. We should be slow to delete any of it. VocalIndia (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My search also found several references in non-english works. His other language articles have a bit more info. Looks notable to me. Jeepday (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreak Management Team[edit]

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

Organization which meets neither WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I don’t think the nominator did WP:BEFORE. Main national organization. On a daily basis in the Dutch national news (see here). The Outbreak Management Team (OMT) determine the Dutch corona policy. They are the main advisors to the government on the basis of their deliberations. Chairman Jaap van Dissel explains the decisions when standing next to Mark Rutte on national television. Read for example this article, SportsOlympic (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. I would advise the nominator to withdraw as this AfD is simply embarrassing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dutch equivalent of British SAGE. Rathfelder (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Brief article, not much to keep. No objection to merge either, just do not see an important phrase yet that is missing in the target. gidonb (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The OMT is the advisor of the cabinet for COVID policy. Since the pandemic broke out last year, the OMT and its recommendations make national headlines multiple times a week. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly notable, if coverage is a problem, it can be expanded from the page in Dutch. Deleting pages, contrary to what some people think, is not a solution. Super Ψ Dro 12:31, 9 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 22:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1973 Equatorial Guinean presidential election[edit]

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

Nominating this for deletion as it not clear whether it actually happened. The article was originally written based on an entry in the African Elections Database. However, this was subsequently deleted. Why there was supposedly an election is unclear, as the president at the time had only recently been declared president for life.

As discussed on the talk page, there is an es.wiki article, but it is heavily sourced to a book that contains some basic factual errors (for example, its source for the claimed results of the election (a Nohlen et al. book) is actually the results of a referendum in the same year.

With this in mind, I thought it might be a good idea to AfD it, in case anyone can provide some definitive sources that it happened (or not). Number 5 7 20:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Great catch! Almost everything points to this having been a mistake in the African elections database, creating effectively a duplicate of 1973 Equatorial Guinean constitutional referendum. I believe that Nohlen's book and the es.wiki page (and, by the way, a ca.wiki page) are basically correct, and both give a July date for a constitutional referendum. I checked in Lent's Heads of States and Governments and it agrees that there was a referendum and a parliamentary election in 1973 but makes no mention of presidential elections. If we believed that the 1973 Equatorial Guinean constitutional referendum constituted a sort of presidential referendum, we could follow articles like 2002 Iraqi presidential referendum, at least as the title of a redirect, to clarify that it was not really an "election". But I'm not convinced that's true. Worse, there appears to be an outright mistake here: in no source can I find evidence that anything happened in October 1973. So in the end delete looks like the most correct option. - Astrophobe (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although I guess that Nohlen's book doesn't have an error, does it? On page 356 it lists a July referendum and no 1973 presidential election. That table says there were no presidential elections between 1968 and 1989 (with one referendum in 1982 that could apparently be considered an election). And, with due respect to WP:EXPERT, that's pretty much the standard reference text, and I'd be inclined to believe it unless there's really strong evidence not to. - Astrophobe (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search does not find anything to support this article. Jeepday (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "... a new constitution presented to the Third Congress of PUNT in July 1973, approved by PUNT and ratified by a referendum organised by PUNT. The new constitution contained a clause requiring election of the president by direct secret universal suffrage, but as the Thrid Congress proclaimed Macias President for Life, this clause was immediately suspended."^[1] No mention in the Historical Dictionary of Equatorial Guinea Timeline for 1973 (p xxvi) or the entry under Macias (pp 237-240).^[2]

References

^ Cronjé, Suzanne. Equatorial Guinea, the Forgotten Dictatorship: Forced Labour and Political Murder in Central Africa. Anti-Slavery Society. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-900918-05-6.
^ Liniger-Goumaz, Max. Historical Dictionary of Equatorial Guinea (3rd ed.). Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-0-8108-3394-4.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Team is in Indian Women's League. (non-admin closure) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kickstart FC[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, team not in a league listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to USS Mason (DE-529). Consensus against having a standalone article on this topic. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Henry Mason[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to USS Mason (DE-529) the ship named for him as he fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to USS Mason (DE-529), the ship's namesake. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:02, 7 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) 21:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Dayani[edit]

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

I can't find anything about this player. From the sources, he has played at a youth level of some sort but being called up to a training camp or playing at youth level does not meet the requirements of WP:NFOOTBALL. Yalovaspor is an amateur club playing in an amateur league so wouldn't make him notable. Fails WP:GNG and the article is written like a CV. Spiderone 19:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NFOOTY and GNG and yes the English language portion of the article reads like a CV JW 1961 Talk 19:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass GNG. It is time we started actually enforcing GNG as the guideline it is meant to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real resources found in his native language. 90 TV (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Hoax article. Govvy (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Hardly any coverage, including as محسن دیانی. gidonb (talk) 22:59, 12 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 16:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019 Southern California wildfires[edit]

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

Not notable, not destructive, super minor article. Together, all the fires equal 800 acres, which isn't even large enough to earn its own spot on 2019 California wildfires alone, much less its own article. I tried CSD tagging this article before but it got reverted. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 19:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as proposer --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any notable claims in the article. The sources are limited. My google did not find anything to add. Jeepday (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking at WP:EVENTCRIT we need to see a notable, lasting effect. Wildfires of 800 acres don't really fit this criteria. If the article told about homes lost, businesses lost, stock losses and life and limb lost, then yes, we would have notable, lasting effect. Not in this article, so Delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat (title)[edit]

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

The article is a mess since its beginning. There was no source in last best version and also its not encyclopedic as this is not some sort of military or civilian title but surname used by a particular caste. It fails WP:GNG Heba Aisha (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Look at the fifth paragraph for more info ;) per nom Sungodtemple (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything notable in the article, and google does not show me anything notable. Jeepday (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We need a FamilynameWiki for these sort of things. RationalPuff (talk) 23:55, 12 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. Majority of editors argue that the topic is notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Hansen[edit]

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

The article used to be rather shoddy, but it's been improved and a PROD declined. But, even now, I still believe that the subject falls short of GNG. The following sources are used in the article and none of them are independent or constitute sigcov: her personal website, an interview, ~~a 2006 press release about her leaving an employer~~, a more detailed release about her joining a new firm, the website of her radio show and a story about her husband. A WP:BEFORE search lets me think that the editors already got the most out of these sources. I understand that she must be fairly well-known, but I don't believe WP:JOURNALIST is met either. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to having enough sourcing to show that she is a notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Johnpacklambert - can you please say why? This is a really unhelpful contribution. Deus et lex (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two versions in the history of this article: a version created in March 2007, when referencing standards were extremely lax, which by 5 June 2011 had acquired one good reference (The Age, a major newspaper) and received the first of a series of edits by a probable COI editor (user name is the same as a product she was selling at the time). By November 2020 it had accrued a second decent reference (Radio Today, which appears to be a broadcasting news site) and was PRODded by KidAd on notability grounds and deleted. It was recreated a couple of days ago by Celco85, whose last version was this after a rejected speedy deletion nomination by Sonofstar on notability grounds and a PROD by the nominator on notability grounds, which I removed while expanding the article using the two sources Celco85 had included (one of which, Melbourne My Style, they had at a search URL), the two from previous versions that had been undeleted after I inquired on an admin's page as to whether the page was a recreation (it is not), and others I found by searching, including using information from the older article, which had much more information about her career. I reject the nominator's assertion that all the sources are connected to the subject: The Age is not; while Radio Today draws on a news release, it is clearly not a regurgitation—look at how it goes on to report on the person leaving the position; nor is the Sydney Morning Herald, another respected newspaper. The article in that last is primarily about her husband, but used in the article for information about her: her novel, for biographic completeness (I found no citable reviews, but it was published by a reputable publisher), and her private life (husband, children). The remainder are non-independent but none is a press release and all used minimally to fill out the article: her personal biography for her birthplace, school, and major in university (other sources also mention the university); her current employer to support the 3rd-person source on that point; and the Melbourne My Style, some sort of society/human interest website, is an interview, but provides useful biographical references, including her further education. I imagine there are other news reports from the start and end of her Ten News stint: I did not find the two formerly cited sources in my initial search, I found some fluff pieces that I did not use (notably an interview that appears on peterbannan.com and appears to be recycled from newsbytesonline in 2014), and all I found on Trove was a 1994 case in which she denied involvement, but the sources we are now using, and the sources I rejected except for those reports on Trove, all present her as a well-known news presenter, and co-anchoring a network's evening news program in a major region is a significant position in her field. So my primary argument for notability is GNG, but secondly I think she also has a claim as prominent by virtue of that 10-year position. In particular, the older version was an old article presenting a noted career that should have been tagged as requiring more sources; it amply suggested notability, but was woefully under-sourced (and the business does not appear to have attracted independent coverage, so I did not reinsert that in the article.) I believe my sourced expansion shows that she squeaks by, and that Australian editors can probably find older news reports that are not online, but not yet old enough to be in Trove's archive. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me admit that I misjudged the article in The Age; it is not a basic press release and I'll make sure to strike that part from the nomination. I do concur with your statement that she is a well-known news presenter and I don't doubt that there is lot's of verifiable biographical information about her, which could and is being used in her article. Where we disagree is the content of WP:GNG: to convince me that she meets the guideline all that is needed are two pieces in reliable publications which are substantial enough and clearly independent. If we allow that the piece in The Age is in this category, we are still lacking that second source. The Radio Today article is not sufficient, given that it has press release-character and that much of it is taken up by direct quotations of the subject. Of course, there is still WP:JOURNALIST. You seem to suggest the she meets criterion 4 (it could also be 3) by virtue of [her] 10-year position. If I am correct in thinking that you aim at No. 4 or 3, yours is a rather loose interpretation of these criteria. I know of many people who appear on TV and have been around for decades, some of them write books and act in films. Therefore, I fail to see what makes Jennifer Hansen more notable than the countless other minor celebrities in the media. (I think this question is at the core of WP:JOURNALIST.) Only after the notability of a subject is established should we attempt to fill their article with information. Your comment argues for the existence of verifiable content (which, I agree, is fundamentally important) and glosses over how exactly she meets WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. A case in point is the Sydney Morning Herald article. Yes, it comes from a reliable source and is independent. But the subject is only mentioned in passing, which means that it does not have much merit for assessing her notability measured against GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT. Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. KidAd talk 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir. The article meets WP:GNG. The sources in the article (except for her personal website) show that there is significant and independent coverage of her. The Age article is indepedent and substantial. The Radio Today article is independent - the fact that it quotes the subject does not make it unreliable - as Yngvadottir says it goes beyond that. Deus et lex (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page seems OK to me. I have added a few new facts and citations (via a ProQuest database search of Australasian newspapers) which should help. Cabrils (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir. The article has improved and further references added since first presented. Fleet Lists (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having enough references to pass WP:GNG. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaur City[edit]

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

Unsourced stub about a non-notable planned development, fails WP:N with flying colours. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following pages as part of the bundle, because they relate to the same development. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Non notableKashmorwiki (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all of these articles. Main does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth, others are nn content forks of the main. None of these meets NBUILD for historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. // Timothy :: talk 18:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 18:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a property website. This should have been CSD. RationalPuff (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, only: under what criterion? I did consider WP:G11, but concluded that didn't quite fit. You have other/better ideas? Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A7 and G11 both fits from my point of view. RationalPuff (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Pilean (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 3. Meet neither WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all if these ever get built, they might be notable then, but they are not notable as proposed projects that do not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mayoticks (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity Woman[edit]

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

Fails in passing WP:GNG. Can't find any reliable sources anywhere about this organisation, just their own website and some pr webpages. Mayoticks (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mayoticks (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It passes WP:GNG and have multiple appearances in media. As the article was created in 2014 many refs are being archived. Although, these references should be enough to satisfy GNG.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/31/every-woman-should-be-her-own-chief-financial-officer.html https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20121218005921/en/Lynn-Tilton-named-2012-Diversity-Woman-Magazine%E2%80%99s

Please do a WP:BEFORE to make any action on the page as you did with nominating previous pages too. Pilean (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pilean! Thanks for clarifying. By seeing current sources It seems it passes WP:GNG. I will withdraw the nomination and sorry for any actions. As I am still learning how to be master of Wiki. Mayoticks (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilean, the first isn't coverage of the magazine and the second is a press release. Neither of those help to establish that this meets GNG. Blablubbs|talk 14:52, 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. There is no support for deletion besides the nom. One user supports a merger. Consensus is against deletion. This should not preclude a separate merge proposal. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cricketers by number of international five-wicket hauls[edit]

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

Delete per WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCRUFT. No coverage about them as a group.

Helpful content can be smerged with the main article, five-wicket haul, which is comparatively small in size. Störm (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-designed list, with a clear set of inclusion criteria. It's more than just a stats dump, with plenty of prose, and coverage of both men's and women's cricket. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:NLIST which is the criterea for judging lists. Lists can only be made (except nav lists) if they have recieved coverage in multiple WP:RS as a group which this list fails. Störm (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, considering so many similar articles (e.g. List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan are featured lists. This strikes me as an occasion when WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS makes sense. St Anselm (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm Murali list is about an individual who was the highest wicket-taker in test cricket so it is easy to find articles/books that discuss his fifers as a group, but not in this case. Störm (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a well-defined list, with plenty of supporting prose. It is neither trivial nor indiscriminate, so no idea why LISTCRUFT is being quoted. Spike 'em (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate how this meets WP:NLIST. Please provide sources where this was discussed as a group as I failed to find any. Störm (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lugnuts and StAnselm. extra999 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. A well detailed list. Pilean (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to five-wicket haul. Topic can be easily accommodated within the main article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Lugnuts. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am still not convinced that how this list meets WP:LISTN, the guidline says "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The above comments don't reflect the current WP policy on such lists. Closing admin, please close this AfD in the light of WP:LISTN. Störm (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NLIST actually says One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. It does not state that the topic has to be discussed as a group for it to be kept. Spike 'em (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spike 'em is again misquotating and want to cherrypick. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. Grouping is necessary for stand-alone list except when we create a list for navigational purposes. Pilean, CreativeNorth, Extra999, Lugnuts if they want to re-consider. Störm (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please either withdraw that accusation or show me exactly what I am misquoting. I have lifted those quotes straight from NLIST (with some emphasis added). Spike 'em (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And per WP:LISTPURP, it does not have to be a navigational list: Information:The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list.

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of women players who have scored 1,000+ runs in Twenty20 International cricket[edit]

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

1,000+ runs in Twenty20 International cricket is not a prestigious club. Fails WP:LISTN completely. Störm (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list has a clear set of inclusion criteria of a notable achievement, with everything sourced. A bit of work and it could become a WP:FL. Note there's also a list for male cricketers. Deletion would also fail WP:BIAS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. I'm concerned by the number of nominations by this editor that ignore the Cricket WikiProject. St Anselm (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. extra999 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Pilean (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; valid list topic, but the title is appalling and inconsistent with the corresponding list article for men. Seems like the 1000 run threshold will need reassessing before too long, so something like List of players who have scored the most runs in Women's Twenty20 International cricket would be better (similarly for the men's article). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking about the terrible article title too when I saw this nom. Anything that ditches the "1,000+" bit has to be an improvement, as well as the reworking the "women players" to match the format of WT20I cricket. That aside, some crude maths indicate that a cricketer needs to play 50 to 60 matches to get to 1,000 career runs in WT20Is. Most of them have a career average between 21 and 31 runs too. Even ignoring the COVID impact to fixtures, most women's teams seem to play only six to nine WT20Is in a YEAR! So round that up to ten to make it easier, and that's 5 to 6 years for someone to score 1,000+ runs. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lugnuts: & @Wjemather:, Thanks for the 'KEEP'!! I am pretty awful with titles and picked the name from this which is also a pretty bad one. mitratanmoy 11:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lugnuts. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Lugnuts – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are no sources present for the match and date in which the player acheived 1000+ runs. The references for each players innings-by-innings lists are do not show this. Ajf773 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ajf773:, based on your suggestions, added the scorecards of each of those matches. Hope this is what you were asking for. mitratanmoy 11:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't sufficient because the content referring to the player reaching the milestone of 1000 T20 runs isn't in those scorecards. Ajf773 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lugnuts. mitratanmoy 11:54, 12 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 19:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mortmar, California[edit]

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

The story in the article about moving the place, ostensibly from Durham, is almost certainly false: Gudde states that the name is a corruption of "Mortmere", that is, "Dead Sea", a name that only became meaningful with the formation of the Salton Sea. At any rate, he also calls it a station, not a town, and maps show a long passing siding which is still in use. What passes for a settlement there is a patch of failed development which is worth a trip to Google Streetview to see in its post-apocalyptic splendor, but there is no evidence it was called Mortmar. Ghits are clickbait and railroad regulation stuff. Not a notable anything. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with the nom. Everything I see around that area calls it North Shore or Historic North Shore. Even the "marina" and "yacht club" look drab. It looks like it was a swinging place back in the day. The hotel pool looked nice. I especially love the trailer park that, in 2008, had two trailers but, in 2021, now has none. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 17:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Durham does not say Mortmar was "relocated", this is a misreprestenation of the source. It says "locality, 22 miles SW of Indio...; the place is near the Salton Sea....Called Mortmere on California Mining Bureau's map...On USGS (1904) map, the name applies to a place located 18 miles southeast of Indio along Southern Pacific Railroad–water of Salton Sea now covers this earlier site. Both the current and former location were sites on the railroad, but there there is no indication either was a settlement of any notability nor any indication they are the same location that was "relocated". Reywas92^Talk 18:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seems a notable place. Pilean (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every place that had some sort of name assigned to it is notable. We need realiabe sourcing showing some sort of actual community.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 7 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 Kalat cricket team. Consensus that the lack of independent sourcing makes a separate article unsustainable, but I will redirect to the article where the subject is mentioned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Razzaq (cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no need to copy and paste my same comment in two different discussions. See here. Bobo . 16:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time we get rid of articles that do not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak redirect to Kalat cricket team. As with similar AfDs (e.g. Anwar Ali), fails GNG; by consensus, the presumption of notability afforded by NCRIC to cricketers such as these is worthless. In future it may be better to be bold and redirect similar articles, and reserve AFD for only those contested. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if you want sources to be found, an AfD is not the way to go about it. Bobo . 09:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- already covered in sufficient detail at Kalat cricket team, and the title is arguably not useful as a redirect. Reyk _YO! 08:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kalat cricket team as consistent with the similar AFD on Abdur Razzaq. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Jabbar (Kalat cricketer)[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When does sending things to AfD go from being fun to ever so slightly pushing a regime? If List of Kalat players exists, merge if you must. If not, then create one, otherwise don't complain other people have done the work you should be doing rather than destroying it. Bobo . 16:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not to cast aspersions, but your deleted contributions history is interesting, Storm. You even go as far as destroying your own work. What went wrong that we are so cynical of the aims of this project? This is the ultimate in "I've just discovered a way to push exclusionism even towards my own creations". I said it when all of this started. We are no longer a cricket project. We have become Frankenstein. And to be honest, those who have worked on the project for the last 16 years probably have no interest if those who decide to create also decide to destroy. Bobo. 17:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The character assasinations on those who have wised up and realized how unsustainable the early level of articles in Wikipedia was should stop immediately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Define "level". Number, or quality (read: length)? The whole point of Wikipedia is to start off with an article and then improve it. If you can't improve it, or refuse to do so - there is plenty of low-hanging fruit to be "improved" in the field of Test cricketers - don't complain. Bobo . 19:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you look at it, the work that is being removed is that of myself, Lugnuts, and 02blythed. The only three of us who have been bothered to create articles. If people refuse to work on them, that's not the fault of any of the three of us. None of us can be blamed for this. For that purpose, I am no longer bitter or angry about this. Bobo . 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest/request you refrain from any further disruption of these discussions (through casting aspersions and general complaining). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. When people work towards the aims of the project in expanding it rather than destroying it. Those who have no will to do so should not be making judgements on those who have done. Until then, I will remain suspicious of their activities. There is a distinction between being angry and being suspicious. Bobo . 11:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is high time we started ridding Wikipedia of article on non-notable people who do not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak redirect to Kalat cricket team. As with similar AfDs (e.g. Anwar Ali), fails GNG; by consensus, the presumption of notability afforded by NCRIC to cricketers such as these is worthless. In future it may be better to be bold and redirect similar articles, and reserve AFD for only those contested. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if these decisions took place on WT:CRIC rather than AfD I might respect those who instigate the discussions. Until then I will assume they have no respect towards the aims of the project. Bobo . 11:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you want more sources to be found, an AfD is not the way to do so. Having said that, work should be done in List of X players articles anyway. "Quality of articles" and "length of articles" are not the same thing. Arguing to delete articles for "lack of quality" is nonsense. Bobo . 09:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- these database scrape articles are becoming unsustainable. Data that amounts to a few cells in a spreadsheet should be presented as such in a table, so if List of Kalat cricketers existed it could be merged/redirected there. When and if that article gets created we can still make a redirect to it. And protest the personal attacks on the nominator and other participants of this discussion. Reyk _YO! 08:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denison Marrs[edit]

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

Non-notable band. I can't find any WP:RSes for the band. They do not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has some notable songs. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which songs are notable? I don't see any linked in the article. I did not find any when searching. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing to see here: no links to songs, no links to performers, no reliable sources in the references. Does not meet WP:NBAND --Whiteguru (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SCOA Nigeria[edit]

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

This is a PLC, so could be notable, however I've not found significant coverage that would meet the WP:NCORP criteria. The relationship between the CEO and one of Donald Trump's children may be interesting and verifiable but doesn't contribute to the notability of the company. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — possible covert UPE of a non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Celestina007 (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited for the boyfriend of the second daughter of the President of the United States. One reference is a gossip page, another reference is the content of this article, and there is nothing here to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Nothing! --Whiteguru (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NCORP as per nom Spiderone 19:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Avenue Creative[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Avenue Creative (company)

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. The article basically says that the company was registered, what it used to do and does now, and that it joined its local Chamber of Commerce. There's no substance here. This is just an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — promotional article for a non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus does not satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Celestina007 (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Peeling back the layers here, take a look at the link at the bottom of the Businessday reference - the company's website is given as www.theavenue.ng and if you follow that, it redirects to the Instagram page of The Avenue Electronics Ikoyi, which sells gadgets, gemstones and crystals. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — it’s actually funny how I, in the past nominated this article for deletion because of its non notability and shady nature and eventually it had 2 delete !votes + my nom(which is the auto delete !vote) making it 3 delete !votes in total and 1 keep !vote yet it was closed as “No consensus” Celestina007 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Yes, I saw that - the only person arguing for the article to be kept was the creator. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The present article seems to form part of a set of linked articles with Ade A. Olufeko & Visual Collaborative, featuring WP:PEACOCK prose ("seasoned technologist", "hiatus from the corporate environment", "a Zen-like approach", etc.). The reorientation of the present company to perform a role in new property management software and its membership of a Chamber of Commerce are not inherently notable. A BusinessDay source suggests this is a subsidiary of Visual Collaborative whch might be a redirect target, though it is not mentioned there. AllyD (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modo, Inc.[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT, specifically "...has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." While i would argue that the Inc. Magazine article qualifies, i see no other coverage that would satisfy the 'multiple' part of 'multiple reliable secondary sources'.

An, admittedly, not too thorough google search yields little of note. If anyone more versed in google wants to try, go for it.

Additionally, nothing links here and in the 11 years since its creation, this article has not appreciably improved. Bonewah (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The thorough Inc. magazine article positions the firm as prominent in their field and could certainly count towards notability. There was also an article entitled "Modo moves medicines" which appears to be accessible now only as a lesson in a language tutorial book: [6]. But I'd really like to see more coverage if WP:NCORP is to be demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the (two) references appear to be robust, the second one appears to be more advertorial in nature. Search shows they have taken out patents, and there is all this Spanish search results which don't really refer to them. As above, more coverage is needed to satisfy notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this company meets notability requirements. --Kbabej (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vitamin String Quartet. Consensus that these topics are not notable and should be redirected to the quartet's article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

String Quartet Tribute to Coheed and Cambria in Keeping Secret[edit]

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

Looking through the Vitamin String Quartet article I noticed a few of these small articles about albums they've produced.

Other articles that are basically this and don't seem notable (so also part of this nomination):

It looks like all 3 of these have a single Original Composition, which might be why they seem more notable, but surely a redirect to Vitamin String Quartet and noting their original compositions on that page would be a better way of doing that instead of having a whole encyclopedia article for a cover album. -- Random Time 13:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Thanks to the extra searching below by Spiderone, I have added the following article to this bundled AfD: ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the Chamber with Linkin Park

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Random Time 13:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Vitamin String Quartet due to lack of notability. I also think that In the Chamber with Linkin Park fails notability Spiderone 14:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all (there are now four albums in the nomination) to Vitamin String Quartet. We've seen some other recent AfDs on curious ensembles like this, who create dozens or even hundreds of albums as some sort of musical hobby, with no promotion or notice, and probably in return for pennies via Spotify. Good for them but the albums do not qualify for their own articles here, due to failing WP:NALBUM. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all As per above. Pilean (talk) 21:57, 6 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. – Joe (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hinarere Taputu[edit]

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

The only source on the article is the webpage of the competition she was involved in, which is thus not an indepdendent source. My search for sources turned up listings in various social media but no substantial sources at all John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources, but - as may have been expected since she was Miss Tahiti and Miss France World - they're in French.
- https://femmesdepolynesie.com/carriere/la-facette-meconnue-de-hinarere-taputu/ - 2019, so shows that people are still writing about her 4-5 years after her victories
- http://honuatere.com/hinarere-taputu/ - she wrote it, so it's a primary source, 2019
- http://sportstahiti.com/sportstahiti-mag-rete-ebb-hinarere-taputu-couple-sportif-tendance/ - 2018
- https://www.lexpress.fr/styles/beaute/hinarere-taputu-miss-tahiti-2014-en-route-pour-miss-monde_1742289.html
- https://www.tntv.pf/tntvnews/polynesie/societe/miss-monde-interview-exclusive-de-hinarere-taputu/
- https://www.linternaute.com/television/programme/1206386-hinarere-taputu-miss-tahiti-elle-est-celibataire-et-veut-le-rester/
- https://www.programme-tv.net/news/evenement/miss-france-2015/60336-hinarere-taputu-miss-tahiti-elue-premiere-dauphine-revient-sur-la-polemique-video/
- https://www.programme-tv.net/news/evenement/miss-france-2015/60266-miss-france-2015-la-toile-en-colere-apres-la-defaite-de-miss-tahiti/ - apparently there was a bit of controversy?
- https://www.telestar.fr/actu-tv/autres-emissions/miss-monde-2015-hinarere-taputu-evoque-les-tensions-entre-les-miss-interview-vid-184803
- https://www.programme-television.org/news-tv/Miss-France-2015-Hinarere-Taputu-est-elue-Miss-Tahiti-4024094
- https://www.puretrend.com/article/miss-tahiti-2014-hinarere-taputu-et-si-c-etait-elle-miss-france-2015_a89569/1
- https://actu.fr/polynesie-francaise/papeete_98735/miss-monde-hinarere-taputu-se-prepare-avec-son-coach_27738567.html --GRuban (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment L'Express above might be a notable source, unsure about the others, I haven't read them. If so, I'd support keeping her. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on some of them: tntv.pf is Tahiti Nui Television, programme-television.org is Télé 7 Jours, linternaute.com is L'Internaute. Télé Star [fr; de; it] has an article in the French, German, and Italian Wikipedias, though strangely enough not in English, and programme-tv.net is Télé-Loisirs [fr] which also has a French language Wikipedia article. They're popular news outlets, so notable enough for the purpose. --GRuban (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having read several of the sources, while some are a bit short on sigcov, there are sufficient suitable ones to indicate that notability is met. Obviously it would be nice if the article could be improved - if nothing else, adding the source list above to the talk page would be useful for anyone in the future. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ebs Akintade[edit]

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

A grossly undersourced BLP (refs are IMDb and a BBC programme information page) with promo issues – appears to be an autobiography. I can't find anything that would establish that he meets NBIO. Hence delete. Blablubbs|talk 11:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, not sure why this is being considered for deletion. I am a British broadcaster and presenter. Is it factually incorrect? Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebuaki (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: confirmed WP:AUTOBIO with most the article being original research. Pulisi (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 17:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is this from a tabloid but I doubt it's enough on its own Spiderone 13:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, funnily enough thats not been mentioned or cited in the article till now when I added it, controversial content is better than unverifiable original research. Pulisi (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange how that doesn't even get a passing mention when it's actually the only think that he seems to be known for. Spiderone 13:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BASIC and none of his roles make him inherently notable enough for an article Spiderone 13:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See this diff for when he removed a deletion template before, stating This page should not be deleted please as a reason. Since then no refs have been added except one mentioned above and all that was added was original reseach liekly in an attempt to establish notability (but without sources).Pulisi (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a run of the mill reporter. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a cool guy to have a drink with and chat about shit. I'm sure he has some stories that would be fun to hear. Not notable enough to pass GNG and be included. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 17:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Google hits are predominantly in websites/sources not independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a minor local radio reporter. 107.8 Radio Jackie is a fine radio station but its news team largely consists of students and trainees, not a particularly notable role, and if we had an article for every BBC local radio guest we would be here for decades. In addition, it looks like the guy has written most of the article himself. CallLetters (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)≥[reply]
Delete it seems he isn't a notable radio reporter and just a locally. Also there isn't enough in-depth reliable sources. Fatzaof (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 18:33, 12 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) 06:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Hoff[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage to be found. Article includes a list of articles by local newspapers, but as far as I can see none of these rise above routine coverage and passing mentions. Article has been unsourced since its creation in 2008 and has never had any substantial content. Lennart97 (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment leaning towards delete, since I have not been able to verify any of the sources mentioned in the article. There may indeed be SIGCOV in the listed sources in the article but enough of these would need to be verified to confirm notability. Note that the long lit of reviews was pasted into the article body from his CV, rather than added as verified and/or inline sourcing. Possibly (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when 1 of 2 listed sources is the subject's own website there is no way that we have a passing of GNG and we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the press references come from this artist's website. They are mostly local exhibitions and the article does not give reliable sources that indicate general notability. Three external links to SFGate don't do this. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there has been some coverage, as is clearly mentioned in the article. Much of that coverage is not available online. What we do have online is all by the same author. For an active artist, it is somewhat surprising to see that coverage pretty much stops about 15 years ago. That's possible, of course, and notability is not temporary. I've looked a bit closer at the awards; the Grand Award of the San Diego Art Institute was a pay-to exhibit juried art show, with a $2000 prize. [7] and is not the kind of award that would satisfy WP:NARTIST, neither is the California Discovery Gold Award, which I've only found mentions of in sources related to Hoff. The SECA Art Award at SF MOMA is an award for a local artist from a very notable institution with a modest cash prize. There are two problems; he is listed as finalist, but the award was not given in 1999 (it's biennial). The Eureka Fellowship is more indicative of notability. In the same year that Hoff received it, so did Jim Campbell , Geoffrey Chadsey, Sergio De La Torre, Lewis deSoto, Todd Hido and Stephanie Syjuco. The real problem I have with this subject is the lack of available material; I can't find anything that could sustain an article. We have almost nothing we could say about him. If he were a professional soccer player from Liechtenstein who played only one game, the AfD would have been an obvious keep, of course, but because we're writing about a visual artist, our standards are much, much higher. Vexations (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CSD#G14. – Joe (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IOCG (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Should this page even exist? It's a DAB page, but only one has a blue link. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per MOS:DABNOLINK, "A disambiguation page should not be made up completely of red links or have only one blue link on the entire page, because the basic purpose of disambiguation is to refer users to other Wikipedia pages." Redoryxx (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The gamers community should probably be removed, but the second and third entries appear notable. I've added blue links to them both (as well as a "see also" entry); the content we've got on the topics is meagre, but it's better than nothing. – Uanfala (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nb I just removed 2 that are "IOGC" rather than "IOCG". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G14: this page disambiguates only one page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank for spotting those – maybe these entries can be moved to IOGC (it's currently a redirect to the primary topic of IOCG (disambiguation), which is probably the reason why the entries were on the dab page in the first place). But even after your edits, the page remains viable, as it disambiguates two topics (both are linked); it's also got a third, redlinked, entry (which someone could find a blue link for), and a "see also" link. G14 should obviously be out of the question. – Uanfala (talk) 14:43, 9 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 16:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eros Innovations[edit]

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

Blatant G11, but there's a new editor removing the tags with no other reason than "no consensus". I'm bringing it here because the new editor is edit warring over the tags. Pahunkat (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep. Well sourced. Not a hoax. Gungeplunge (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy Delete — Per G11, and also a non notable article on an organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources thus fails WP:ORG. Celestina007 (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as outrageously promotional. For what it's worth, the person who edit warred over the tag has since been blocked as an LTA. Blablubbs|talk 12:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed promotional material. Reliable sources on this page include Sports Illustrated, Deadline, Variety, The New York Times, USA Today, Complex, The New York Post, and Forbes. Jakeswish (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The content seems to be about Mike Tyson - as do nearly all the references. I understand the celebrity based business purpose, but one celebrity in this OTT streaming service does not merit notability for WP:ORGCRIT. There is scant information about the business itself. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whilst some of the promotional language has been corrected, this still does not pass WP:NORG Spiderone 20:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brian Harvey. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solo (Brian Harvey album)[edit]

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

Unnotable album GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Harvey's solo album. The article is tagged for multiple issues, including notability and lack of sources. There are no sources in the article whatsoever. The Hungarian article is up to Afd as well, and although sources are present in that article, they don't establish notability. Discogs is not a reliable source, and the Allmusic page is just a track listing + user reviews. During a Google search I couldn't find anything that establishes notability. (Also, the bland name makes searching difficult.) Unnotable album. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brian Harvey, as is usual for non-notable albums. The nominator is correct on this album's lack of significant coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage for a detailed article. Redirect would not help as there is little information to incorporate. HĐ (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect simply sends a user to the musician's article if they search for the album title. Otherwise the album article becomes invisible to the typical WP user. You actually argued against a merge, which has not been suggested. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. In that case I agree to redirect this article to Brian Harvey. HĐ (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect to Brian Harvey. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Ash M. Richter[edit]

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

Not notable. All but one of the cited sources are not independent of the subject, and their promotional tone carries through to the article. The one exception is a National Geographic article, but it doesn't actually mention the subject's name. I couldn't find anything else that would meet the WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly we do not have enough for passing GNG. An article that fails to mention someone's name is not a source that we can use to justify passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --GRuban (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to give Sirjulio their week. --GRuban (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week, and Sirjulio (talk · contribs) has not edited. --GRuban (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found in Google Scholar (articles about environmental sciences by a different author) and the first Google books listing is about the colouring archeologist or something similar... Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actual googling her results in considerable media, including her Google Scholar page with numerous publications and several 3rd party articles--all of which qual as independent. Majority of third party citations do mention the subject by name, and/or are interviews or quotations of public addresses by subject. I continue to repeat my ongoing concern that female scientist stubs are being deleted from Wikipedia without due diligence and with prejudice. And if an archaeologist who now leads technology projects for the CIA isn't wikipedia worthy- what is? Or does she have to be a man to count?...Keep and reassess the standards and editorial standards that are blocking female scientists from having the presence they deserve User: Anonymous (because I'm tired of being trolled by male editors for objecting to their edits of women's wikis) 00:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hecate316 (talk • contribs)
@Hecate316: Could you provide some links, please? I was unable to find any third-party references and the subject's Google Scholar profile shows low citation counts, far below the level that would usually be required to pass WP:PROF#C1. And please avoid casting aspersions about other editors. There is no prejudice here, and I did a thorough search for sources before nominating. We don't have to abandon our commitment to verifiability and neutral point of view to improve our coverage of women in science. There are plenty of women archaeologists who are clearly and do not yet have articles and if you would like to help us write about them, you are welcome to join our ongoing WikiProject Archaeology task force. – Joe (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, working for the CIA is often accompanied by not being notable, and vice versa. They are rather big on that. See Valerie Plame.

--GRuban (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hold I must concede the cause of this discussion is due to my inexperience at wiki editing, I created the article using the name Ash (most commonly used with informal sources) instead of Ashley (formal citations). The google scholar page of the citations is here: Google Scholar - Ashley M. Richter. Editing Wikipedia has long been an interest to pursue when possible and my readings into the efforts to generate a digital twin of significant heritage sites such as The 2012 Petra Cyber-Archaeology Cultural Conservation Expedition and the science of Cyber-Archaeology I believe to be of significant public interest. So this first article I've created was to be the seed of a larger web of articles that document within Wikipedia's guidelines this important science. If reasonable, I request another week to address the articles current issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjulio (talk • contribs) 21:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here isn't really anything to do with the article, Sirjulio, it's that Richter doesn't appear to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. That is the test we use to decide whether topics should have articles, rather than 'public interest'. The only way you can address that is by showing us that there are multiple independent, reliable sources that contain significant coverage of her or her work. Searching for 'Ashley Richter' doesn't turn up any for me. – Joe (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this very-recent PhD. Google Scholar page [8] shows very small citation numbers for NPROF C1, and there are no signs of the other criteria of NPROF, nor of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm struggling to see evidence of notability. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations on Google Scholar [9] show the subject is not ready for WP:PROF. And we have no sign of the multiple in-depth reliable independent sources needed for WP:GNG — I thought from the title that the "Women Advancing GEOINT" source might at least provide a single one, but it only quotes Richter briefly, so fails to be in-depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per David Eppstein's rationale. --Tataral (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MaXpeedingRods[edit]

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

Company that is into autoparts and lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. From a search on google, articles founds on GNEWS are passing mentions and not enough to confer WP:N. Lord Grandwell (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lord Grandwell (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An online business that sells car parts. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable company. Hmm, I wonder if they have spare parts for a 1962 Beetle? --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 12:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company, nothing to suggest notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:14, 11 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) 17:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Radecki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A bunch of minor roles does not add up to notability, especially when only sourced to the non-reliable IMDb, so we have no reliable source on this biography of a living person and nothing suggesting she would pass the notability guidelines for actresses John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." 11 Cameras 20 episodes and Sailor Moon (TV series) 60 episodes, meets it for me. My google book search found several mentions that meet WP:V so IMDb are not the only sources available. Jeepday (talk) 18:37, 4 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) 07:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Jeepday. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated she meets WP:NACTOR. From what I see doing a quick BEFORE might even meet GNG if someone is willing to do a deeper search. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:39, 6 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. Consensus that there are insuffiicent reliable/secondary sources to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're No Dam Experts[edit]

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

No reliable sources found. Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. Lord Grandwell (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lord Grandwell (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lord Grandwell (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lord Grandwell (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most of the references are primary. My google search did not turnup anything significant. Does not seem to pass WP:WEBCRIT nor WP:GNG. Jeepday (talk) 17:08, 4 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) 07:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd love to go exploring with them but, sadly, the subject doesn't pass GNG. No significant coverage outside primary sources when doing a BEFORE. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:43, 6 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 Passengers of the Titanic#Passenger list. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha Mulvihill[edit]

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

Yet another WP:NOTGENEALOGY entry from a sockmaster intent on creating articles on himself and members of his family. In this case the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:VICTIM and other guidelines. >700 people survived the sinking of the Titanic. They are not all automatically notable. All of the available coverage on this subject relates to her involvement in the that event, and none of it deals with the subject independent of that event. WP:BIO1E is therefore not surpassed. In all bar one or two of the sources, the subject is not the primary topic of the piece (mentioned in books alongside other survivors, "witness testimony", etc). WP:SIGCOV is therefore not surpassed. Most of the article seems to be intent on drawing links between the subject and other members of the same family. In a transparent attempt to imply notability through association with each other. WP:NOTINHERIT is therefore also a concern. I could go on and on about the SOCK, NOTHERE, NOTGENEALOGY and other issues relative to the editing practices of the article's author. But, in terms of the article's subject alone, WP:ANYBIO is not met. In short:

All of the available coverage relates to the subject's involvement in a single event.
None of the available coverage relates to the subject's involvement in anything else notable.
None of the available coverage deals with the subject as the primary topic of that coverage.

Guliolopez (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Passengers of the Titanic#Third class~~ Passengers of the Titanic#Passenger list. Passengers/survivors of this sinking merit at least that. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a notable person. Spleodrach (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passengers of the Titanic#Passenger list, she is mentioned in a table there. There are two sections named "third class", so a more precise target is not possible. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need to stop the use of Wikipedia to create indepth articles on people who were never actually in any way notable. Being among hundreds of people on one boat that did not die when it sunk is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 5 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) 07:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Passengers of the Titanic#Passenger list: she is already listed.Ingratis (talk) 19:17, 6 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 18:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dodanduwa Weerasooriya's[edit]

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

This article's severely undereferenced, most of the references here are blogs, ancestry sites, and other non-reliable sources. Several individuals who apparently don't warrant their own articles are listed as notable. This seems more like puff than a wikipedia piece. JamesG5 (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page creator responded to this in my user page & his own talk page and admitted to a WP:COI issue here, as well as a likely WP:promo concern. IMO this bolsters my concerns. JamesG5 (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Firstly I agree that there is definitely a conflict of interest issue here, in that ShArk50008 has clearly created the article to promote his family. Secondly the other Sri Lankan family articles that he is referring to are predominantly families which have political dynasties across multiple generations such as the Bandaranaike family, Rajapaksa family, Senanayake family, and Wijewardene family. The same doesn't appear to apply to the Weerasooriya family as far as I can see - which only has three notable members, which whilst related are fairly separate members of the same family tree - hardly a prominent notable family. I am erring towards delete but intend to do so more research before reaching any particular conclusion. Dan arndt (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@JamesG5: @Dan arndt:

Comment - It seems ironic to me, as a Sri Lankan, that the very families you refer to, all of these so called dynasties, are known for their exploitation of my country. Starting with the Bandaranaike family who brought in the Sinhala Only Act, which resulted in the 30 year Civil War, and a division which exists even today among communities. In Comparison, the Weerasooriya's of Dodanduwa are not only known well in the country, as a dynasty that has given the country the best of its Clansman, but also contributed tremendously to the development and well being of the country. They have not robbed a cent from Sri Lanka, but rather given back. In comparison to the families you have stated, Weerasooriya's definitely score higher in terms of integrity above all, hence I believe as a family that has been in existence, prominently since the Dutch Era in the South of Sri Lanka, with verified commitment to the country's well being, not only deserve to be on wikipedia, but also deserve to be recognised. FYI I will be updating it with everyone who have noteworthy achievements. They have a lot of people in the family, some of whom do not carry the surname (but are connected on their maternal side), they have contributed tremendously to the country. ShArk50008 (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a list of people with articles in Wikipedia. Could be a disambiguation page rather than an article. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There may be individuals in this family who have contributed to the wealth and well-being of Sri Lanka. I won't debate that. It appears they may already have an article. But being an IT specialist, IT professional, a general practitioner (the others included) in Florida or practicing law in Sri Lanka does not rise to the level of significant contributions worthy to stand notable on their own. I know in some countries notability may be decided by blood relation to other notable persons. That is not the case with Wikipedia and especially not on Wiki:EN as notability is not automatically inherited. This reads like a paid advertisement for the family and is serious POV pushing. Add to that the creator admits to having a COI and refuses to disclose this and it is significant grounds for deletion and the creator may need to be topic banned. I would take the same stance on any family list created as this one has been. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is it that Non-Sri Lankan's are deciding this? All of you appear to be from Western Nations. According to your definition of notability, more than half the existing articles done by South Asians should be deleted. I presume all of you being First World Country citizens, enjoy that privilege. I wonder how many of you have stepped foot in Sri Lanka, or can read the native language. Why aren't Sri Lankan wikipedia editors deciding on this? Why am I to be topic banned? I've done several other articles before with no issue whatsoever. Unfortunately very few people in Sri Lanka contribute to wikipedia, unlike you people, so most Sri Lankans have to do it on behalf of other organisations/people, it's not the same system in America, Canada, Australia, or Europe, we don't as many significant contributors as you do, a lot of our Local history is yet to be added, but when we do, we get some Westerner telling us we can't. Stop applying your subjecting western first world POV on this. There is no conflict of interest, I earlier put my initial posts/replies on the wrong page because I was not so familiar with the talk page, which James took the wrong way. I don't mind people considering it for deletion, as long as its done by Sri Lankan editors, not editors from White Western First World Countries, which is very unreasonable in any context. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShArk50008 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @ShArk50008:, I am a Sri Lankan Wikipedia editor and am very conversant in the country's history so I take offence at your comments. From now on you should stop attacking anyone who has a conflicting point of view to your own and start addressing the issues that have been identified. Dan arndt (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Dan arndt: Apologies for that, thought you were an Australian, I was not attacking anybody, just making a firm reply, do not misunderstand. Earlier I was wondering why some other Canadian and American editors had a say in Sri Lankan articles. If you want to delete this tbh I don't really mind, just did this as a good will gesture, I don't lose anything from this, this kind of Sri Lankan history is very poorly recorded online. Also just curious, who edits articles like this - Chamara Sampath Dassanayake?. Again do not take it the wrong way, I'm fairly new to this. Cheers.

ShArk50008: You do realize that this is the English Wiki, right? I mean, you don't have to only speak English or come from a predominantly English speaking country to edit or create articles here but this wiki has rules for what should and should not be included on its platform. Wiki's from other languages have their own. I have never attacked someone because of their nationality, race, creed or gender/orientation. And don't say you weren't attacking "editors from White Western First World Countries." You totally were attacking. First, I'm not white, but even if I was, how does that preclude me from applying this encyclopedia's guidelines and policies for inclusion to ANY article? Second, you don't know my situation or the situation of anyone else who edits here, except that they are able and well enough to have a means to edit online. This is not an attack on Sri Lankan history. This is an AfD to decide the notability of this article and its inclusion in this encyclopedia. Personally, I am fine with it being included. But, according to guidelines and policies it most likely shouldn't be included. That's why I voted to delete. If you want you can try to get the rules changed. I'd encourage it and probably support you. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 13:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, after giving careful consideration to the matter I have to conclude that it fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY. In that all it consists of is a couple of separate members of the same family tree and a number of non-notable members, which collectively are a non-notable family (based on Wikipedia's guidelines). Dan arndt (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mornsun[edit]

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

~~Electrical power supply company, lots of coverage but achievements do not meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the nomination statement. WP:NCORP is about coverage, not achievements. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 05:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to coverage; nominator would do to remember WP:DIDNOTWIN, WP:NOTBIGENOUGH/WP:IDONTKNOWIT, and more generically that an otherwise notable article being about an unsuccessful or unaccomplished subject does not counter notability if it's been established. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why is this even being nominated? Clearly the article is well sourced. You may question the validity of the sources because of their origins but that's a fallacy. The company may not have achievements but achievements, while helpful, do not equate to notability. Likewise, one need not be well achieved to be counted as notable. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:30, 6 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 after three relists. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victory jigsaw puzzle[edit]

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

An article about an insignificant jigsaw-puzzle "brand". With no articles indicating either its significance or popularity in mainstream culture. At the best, should be redirected to its owner's article J. W. Spear & Sons Daiyusha (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an insignificant jigsaw-puzzle "brand". A board game that was produced for 55 years which played a significant role in the entertainment of thousands of families during wars of the 20th century and are still owned by thousands of families. They manufactured 100's of puzzle topics and thousands of copies. A simple search on Google, board games sites or even Ebay can prove how many this "brand" has a significance. J. W. Spear & Sons produced the puzzle for 18 years while the previous company Hayeter and Co founded in 1928 was around for 42 years. User:Ezteban100 — Preceding undated comment added 06:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's coverage in books like Steam Trains and Jigsaw Puzzles and Collecting Classic Girls' Toys. As a by-the-way, it was interesting to read recently that Eileen Southgate, who painstakingly traced the connectome of C. elegans also liked solving large jigsaw puzzles. Putting together the world's knowledge is the greatest puzzle and it doesn't help if we hide some of the pieces. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Article does not have SIGCOV from IS RS for a stand alone article; sources in the article are not IS RS with SIGCOV and most of the article is unsourced OR/SYNTH. Steam Trains and Jigsaw Puzzles and Collecting Classic Girls' Toys listed above does not have SIGCOV. The other keep vote is an appeal to nostalgia with no sources. // Timothy :: talk 01:01, 4 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) 06:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Spears and sons company article would seem a logical choice. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addnode Group[edit]

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

A company article by a disclosed paid editor that has been draftified 3 times and was unilaterally moved back to mainspace in all of these cases. Looking at Google Translate, the given sources don't seem to establish that this passes NCORP, and a BEFORE search didn't give me any usable English-language coverage either. Someone with knowledge of Swedish may have better luck, but I think it's time that we get this one out of the draftification cycle. Best, Blablubbs|talk 12:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 12:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 12:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 12:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed improvements in the Teahouse as well as with reviewers. I got the suggestion to add "Stub" to the article, which I did and therefore moved it to mainspace again. Please point me in the right direction if I am mismanaging this, but I do not think the stub should be "moved for deletion" I see many similar stub articles with sometimes only the company webpage as reference. For reference look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Swedish_company_stubs. I assume the stub tag is included for this reason. For example, I have included multiple references in addition to the company's annual report. As for notability, the company is no Apple or Microsoft, but it a rather large company in Sweden employing around 1,600 people all over Europe. Again for reference, one can compare it to the other companies in the Swedish stub category.

Lastly I think the stub article is written in a a factual manner based on publicly available information. I have complied with disclosure requirements of wikipedia.Gustav Addnode (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gustav Addnode, it was explicitly pointed out to you that given your status as a disclosed paid editor, you should be submitting articles through AfC, as is considered best practice; you still decided to move it back to mainspace three times, which essentially constitutes move warring. As for notability, it is only determined by significant coverage in independent, reliable sources – if the references don't establish this, the article cannot be included. It's true that we have lots of company articles that don't establish notability, but that is not an argument for adding another one to that list. Finally, a stub tag does not impact the notability requirements and I don't read the teahouse comments as a suggestion to add one and then move to mainspace. Best, Blablubbs|talk 12:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised to add the stub tag, not explicitly move it to mainspace afterwards. I can see that I misunderstood this, as I thought that the stub tag implied "WIP" and didnt need to go thorugh that process. I am new to Wiki and still learing. The correct thing would have been to add the tag, and then submitted it through AfC again. Again, as for notability, there is coverage in independent adn reliable sources - and as you stated, maybe someone with knowledge in Swedish can help evaluate/confirm this. So, instead of deleting a factual article, moving it to AfC with the stub tag might be the best way forward? Thanks for taking the time to discuss and help with the article.Gustav Addnode (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gustav Addnode people who comment on this AfD may decide to !vote for draftification if they think that's the best option. As a sidenote, I don't see where someone recommended adding a stub tag, or indeed, that this implied a work in progress. Quisqualis merely said that a WP:stub may be all that is possible. As for the sources currently in the article:

is a company profile and doesn't constitute significant coverage.
is published by the company and hence not independent. Three is an interview, which are usually not suitable for establishing notability.
is a routine announcement, essentially a re-hashed press release.
is a two-sentence article – again a routine announcement.
is another announcement

In short, I don't see anything here that is sufficient to establish notability, I'm afraid. Blablubbs|talk 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK! The sources are similar to other company pages (which, I agree, does not have to mean that they are independent/notable). However I think that the combination of articles , interviews and some public company information is a solid base for this stub article. It provides useful information but lacks the breadth and coverage expected from an "full" wiki article - for that reason it should be classified as a stub. According to wiki guidlines a stub should only be deleted if it has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability - which i do not think applies to the discussed article. On your sidenote, I was refering to that specific comment "stub may be all that is possible", which implies that a stub is a suitable form of the article. As for the WIP, that was my own interpretation of the word in the context. Thanks for the clarification about the voting process.Gustav Addnode (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Addnode, other stuff exists regarding the sources on other articles, and interviews normally are not independent sources, nor is "public company information". As WP:NCORP and WP:GNG clearly state, the company needs significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources to be presumed notable enough for inclusion. I will avoid !voting in this AfD as I have don't have the ability to run a search in Swedish, but I'd still like to address some of the points you make. Java Hurricane 07:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There are a lot of articles on the company in Swedish on Google News search, e.g. in Computer Sweden in January 2020 and March 2020, and in other publications, but they are almost all recycled press releases (e.g. the two I've linked here). There is a passing mention here; I've no idea about the reliability of the source but it's not WP:SIGCOV. The best I've found is this article in Svenska Dagbladet, which appears to be a fairly in-depth independent financial analysis, and the source is respectable, but one swallow does not a summer make. Of course it's not in the current article, despite being more reliable than the sources that are, because it recommends not buying their shares! I got bored after four pages of press releases but somebody more diligent might be able to find something more. Wham2001 (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– I think this might also be a reliable source Aktiespararna (perhaps even more relevant than the stock analysis from Svd?). Another one: Avanza These articles are meeting the requirements WP:SIGCOV Gustav Addnode (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gustav Addnode: Avanza might be, but it's definitely not sufficient for establishing notability on its own – Aktiesparma is not coverage, but a mere company listing. As a sidenote: Could you start indenting your comments? Thanks. Blablubbs|talk 17:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– If not on its own, maybe together with the other referenced news sources (computer sweden and DI). Gustav Addnode (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The DI and Computer Sweden sources are recycled press releases - they're of no value for establishing notability and shouldn't be used unattributed in the article. I agree with Blablubbs about Aktiesparma - it's a routine listing. I don't know anything about Avanza but on the face of it the source appears to be an investment guide produced by the publishing arm of an investment management company. So far, AFAICT, there are two usable sources (Avanza and SvD), both of them investment guides. I wouldn't consider that enough to meet WP:GNG. Wham2001 (talk) 10:09, 1 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) 06:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails to satisfy WP:NCOMPANY or WP:ORGCRIT as they have not been discussed in reliable sources significantly. @Gustav Addnode, I don’t think it’s fair for you to get paid & then come here with a WP:COI then proceed to inundate us with your problems. Celestina007 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing, to this point, has been added to this article to make me think this company passes WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. A BEFORE search reveals nothing more significant than what is provided. If the company wants to have an article on Wikipedia then maybe their PR team needs to get some reliable media sources to write independent pieces giving the company significant coverage. That's a start. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to show notability of the subject. Lord Grandwell (talk) 20:28, 6 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 13:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bankole Vivour[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I could find no significant coverage of the subject to satisfy WP:GNG; his rank (sergeant) and lack of bravery award fall short of WP:SOLDIER. The only sources in the article relate to his death in action, he has a passing mention (12 words) in Bowman (2016). Lambo (no year), appears to be a chapter of Killingray (Africans in Britain, 1994) which states that he joined his squadron in Winter 1943-44, took part in a raid on Berlin on 24-25 March and died in the 30 March raid and nothing further. Dumelow (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not even come close to meeting either our notability guidelines for soldiers or GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An interesting story, but I'm sure the other 544 airmen who died in the battle had similarly interesting ones. --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 6 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 and rename. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thimble Tickle Bay[edit]

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

This two-line stub has no sources and has been tagged as such since 2009. According to List_of_giant_squid_specimens_and_sightings#45 this seems to be another name for Glovers Harbour, which was just deleted at RfD (see this discussion). Like Glovers Harbour, I think red links here are best until a properly sourced stub can be developed under the most appropriate name and then redirects put in place as appropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article mentions the other name incase this helps. Pulisi (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 17:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: to Glovers Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador. The place clearly exists, and passes WP:GEOLAND https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=DPL&Code1=100358&Geo2=PR&Code2=10&SearchText=Glovers%20Harbour&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=100358&TABID=1&type=0 http://www4.nrcan.gc.ca/search-place-names/unique/AAIAE From what I can tell, there's both a harbour and a community both with the same name. Pladica (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: to Glovers Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador. The census data supports this, this is a better solution than discovery of a giant squid in 1878. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Glovers Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador, per above. Have now expanded with references. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that WP:NPOL #1 is met. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Léopold Hélène[edit]

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

I don't think the subject meets WP:GNG. Firestar464 (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Politicians who hold office at the national level are generally considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per the criteria used for politicians in WP:NPOL the subject is presumed notable. Celestina007 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject passes WP:NPOL as he served in a national legislative body. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously the article should be improved if possible, but members of national legislatures are extended an automatic pass of WP:NPOL #1 with no further notability tests applied on top of the fact of having served in the legislature. Thing being, a person who served in the 1960s and 1970s is not going to have had press coverage that Googles well — their coverage will have to be retrieved from archives, but it certainly existed at the time. Politicians get press coverage, that's a given. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 10 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) 06:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imants Bluzmanis[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The only sourced content is winning second prize in the second division of a 2006 piano competition. I found an announcement of a local performance but no substantial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Pulisi (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 17:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is no where near enough to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Search shows a lot of Youtube - Chopin pieces, and one search result looks like a copyvio. As above, reliable sources are lacking in all search results. WP:ELP applies, unreliable sources. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zaw Naing Thein[edit]

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

Possible covert UPE article on a non notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus fails to satisfy WP:GNG. The ref bombing is a merely a mirage to inject a sense of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yikes!! This one doesn't come close enough to passing GNG to even make an argument. I'm sure he's done amazing things to get where he is but if it's not discussed in reliable sources in this age of internet and media coverage then I'm not sure it ever will be. REFBOMB'ing the article will not add any credible points to it's validity. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanity page. No independent coverage in reliable sources that I can see, though if someone who speaks Burmese can find a few I'd be completely open to changing my !vote. FalconK (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another vanity article for a non-notable businessperson. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:25, 12 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. Consensus fails to meet musician notability Nosebagbear (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Kinder[edit]

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

BLP of a musician that does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. The article says his songs have audiences on streaming channels but never succeeded on terrestrial radio. His songs never charted and he didn’t win any awards. The article is really built around a single review of the album he released in October, which isn’t enough to show notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources thus falls short of WP:GNG. Furthermore no criterion from WP:MUSICBIO is met. Celestina007 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 6 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 16:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zahida Zarik Khan[edit]

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

Non notable politician who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL. Being a “youth chief” of a political party in no way confers notability. A before search shows WP:GNG isn’t satisfied either. Celestina007 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Amazing woman that I hope continues to press forward. In a unique position to infect young minds with dreams of great accomplishments and has the position to help them succeed in achieving said dreams. Unfortunately, a BEFORE search doesn't turn up much more than what is provided and it's not enough to pass GNG criteria. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As above, the material is not enough to pass GNG criteria. The lady is certainly an example to others. WP:POLOUTCOMES indicates that there are substantial requirements for the inclusion of politicians and elected officials. Not met here. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baroda Football Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable association football training program and team. The references show that its players play against other teams and receive news coverage. We knew that, and that is not significant coverage. Does not satisfy general notability. Sports notability and in particular association football notability does not refer specifically to teams or programs, but the team does not play at the fully professional level. Some of its graduates do play at the fully professional level, but that would only qualify if the coverage satisfied general notability, which it does not.

Article has been moved into draft space twice and moved back into article space twice, and it is time to take the article to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It plays in Indian Women's League that is the notability to be eligible to be on Wikipedia It is participating in the league for 2 years regularly but not getting much news coverage, that is not fault of the team to be removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivsa008 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article suggests that it has passed WP:AfC. I'm guessing that is false? Spiderone 09:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment to User:Spiderone - The message on the article was incorrect. You are presumably referring to a template message that says that the article was created through AFC, and the reviewer is in the process of closing out the request. Yes, the template message says that. The template message is wrong. It really means that the article was in draft space and was submitted for AFC review, and was then moved into article space. This normally does not mean that it was accepted by a reviewer, because when a reviewer accepts the draft using the script, that tag is removed. It normally means that it was moved by a Move command. This was commonly done by the draft author, bypassing or ignoring AFC, or move-warring with a reviewer who had sent it to draft space. Sometimes it was done by a neutral editor who is not a reviewer; in that case, it will be closed out normally. In this case, it was moved to article space by the author, not by a reviewer, and the template message is wrong. I think that the template message should be changed, but that is a different issue. Does that answer your reasonable question? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Thanks. It looks like the author has draftified again while this discussion has taken place. Is the AfD still allowed to proceed now that the article is just a draft? Spiderone 16:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone Ideally, I would say not but this article creator hasn't been conducting actions that would seem to be in good faith so I'm not sure how the procedure relates to that. Given the historical data on this article it would seem it's been drafted and moved into article space multiple times, seemingly as the creator wants. That game could go on forever. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the discussion should continue until consensus is reached and that the article creator should follow the AfC process. It's actually a really beneficial process and it's such a shame that so many editors kick off when their articles get moved to draft. Spiderone 17:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In doing a diligent before search in accordance with WP:BEFORE I find no evidence this academy has received significant coverage by any reliable media outlets. Beyond the typical promotional pieces, instagram account or facebook there is little else. If there are professional players who attended and graduated from this academy then maybe a category is warranted. If there are articles on those players then the category can be added to those articles and a list will be auto-created from that. The academy, as it stands now, does not pass WP:GNG, shameful as that may be. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable; can find little if any, coverage. Eagleash (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article has been moved to draft yet again despite an 'only warning' posted at the creator's talk page yesterday. I have brought it to the attention of the Admin. who restored it previously and who also left the warning. Eagleash (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Once a deletion discussion is started, it normally runs for seven days, and moving or blanking it after the discussion is in progress is considered disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Wikipedia community (which we are) and the closer can decide to move an article to draft space. Deleting an article does not (normally) preclude re-creating the article in draft space. I, personally, have no objection to the article being draftified. This started because the author was moving the article from draft space to article space when it was not ready for article space. The author could have proposed to create the article in draft space (except that they have now been blocked). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - However, returning it (twice) to draft after an AfD has been started is disruptive and has led to the creator being blocked, as noted. Eagleash (talk) 09:15, 9 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 Adidas Yeezy#Clothing though without a strong consensus for this particular outcome. There was minimal justification available for keeping the article in this discussion, with other participants split between deletion and a redirect to a list with no further information - so the late merge by BD2412 seems to offer the best method of removing the article that lacks notability while still maintaining sourced content that a reader might be looking for.

The consensus here can therefore be summarised as "remove the article, without a strong consensus as to exactly how" - and now the presence of merged content generally requires this edit history to be maintained somewhere. If there's concerns that this redirect is a little surprising to some searchers, then that may be a separate discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 14:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lela Star[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unclear that she passes the GNG or any other WP:BIO criteria given the limited coverage in reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not apparent that any kind of WP:BEFORE was done, but the subject gets nearly 9000 Google News hits, so it seems unlikely. BD2412 T 03:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC) On further review, there is not enough of intersection between coverage that is in depth and coverage that is reliable to make this worth arguing over. Therefore, redirect to ~~List of Penthouse Pets#2010–2019 (unless details of the ad campaign are added to Adidas Yeezy)~~ Adidas Yeezy#Clothing, to which the details have now been copied. BD2412 T 04:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide specific links to reliable sources that can overcome trivial coverage or WP:BLP1E? I saw a whole lot of clickbait in my previous search. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A raw Google search is not useful for determining notability. In this case, most of the first page of hits are unreliable sources like International Business Times and trivial mentions. Please identify the ones that that provide non-trivial, reliable secondary source coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the criteria for inclusion, which I was helping create before you nice fellows showed up. BD2412 T 04:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model with insufficient coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The last name "star" clouds the search results with other stars named Lela, etc. I am willing to give this individual working in a taboo field (which further obfuscates the search engine) the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps someone else has a methodology that will allow them to have better luck sifting through the source pit and come up with something substantial. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A wholly invalid keep rationale that should not be considered by the closing admin. "Her last name is a common word, I can't find stuff, surely it must be out there!" C'mon... Zaathras (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interviews, light coverage of modeling work for allegedly bearing a resemblance to a Kardashian, but said coverage is about the "nude Kardashians" as a general topic rather than of this subject specifically. 1 of ~600 Penthouse Pets of the Month, not significant. Zaathras (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would wager that the subject is somewhat more significant than the typical Penthouse Pet of the Month, which I think is borne out by there having been nearly a quarter million page views since the creation of the page. That is why I now favor redirecting the title, so that traffic will continue to be captured to some degree. BD2412 T 17:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BD2412; does not really seem like there's enough coverage for an article in its own right, but no reason for the subject not to be mentioned in another article (the fact of this person existing certainly is not in dispute). jp×g 22:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ on the basis that no one has been able to find multiple in-depth sources which provide significant coverage. The only 'keep' argument was on the basis of WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST which is an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. I don't really think the redirect is particularly useful, and wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of information, so i vote delete. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- An alternative would be to merge the content on Yeezy Season 6 in to Adidas Yeezy#Clothing, which mentions Season 6 but does not contain details of the well-reported ad campaign. The presence of this article subject, along with that of Paris Hilton, is a key point mentioned in such coverage. BD2412 T 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert, Zaathras, and Apples&Manzanas: I have now merged the relevant content into Adidas Yeezy#Clothing. I believe the title can now be speedily redirect there, per the GFDL. BD2412 T 17:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...that redirect seems a bit WP:ASTONISHING to me, no? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be astonishing for the name of a model to redirect to the most prominent advertising campaign featuring that model, and for which news articles on the campaign generally mention the model? In any case, the original edit history of the is required to be maintained somewhere under the GFDL. If not here, it can be moved to a subpage of Talk:Adidas Yeezy. BD2412 T 17:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I know nothing about how the WP:GFDL works so I'll support the Redirect. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus not notable Nosebagbear (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Azaitar[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, Only one UFC fightHeinzMaster (talk) 02:13, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting MMA notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight. Since he hasn't fought since mid-2018, it seems like WP:CRYSTALBALL to claim he'll get those two additional top tier fights. He also appears to lack the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Routine sports coverage and promotion do not count. Papaursa (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Signature and Electronic Authentication Law[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, these bills didn't make it out of the House or Senate. This law, then, isn't a law, just a failed bill, and isn't particularly notable. Mikeblas (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these bills didn't even get out of a subcommittee. They appear to have had no lasting impact, and I can find no substantial coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Search results return proposals for this law. Looking into House and Senate coverage doesn't show it was enacted into law. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus for deletion, but if someone would like me to draftify them a copy so they can add in any content to another article, please just drop me a line Nosebagbear (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allagash abductions[edit]

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

No evidence of notability - I don't see anything more than a few local news stories. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any article content to List of reported UFO sightings Like Pi said, I couldn't found much to indicate this warranting its own article, but I think any content could be salvaged and put into the list. Pladica (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:BLP1E. There was a rash of UFPO sightings in 1976-1978. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 11 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. Consensus that notability is not shown Nosebagbear (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ozhukkinethire[edit]

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: All three references are the database entries + a blog entry. Kolma8 (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I totally agree with Kolma8. I do not see the film satisfying WP:NFILM. Celestina007 (talk) 18:48, 6 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. While everyone's participation was policy-based, and are fairly even balanced across the whole AfD, that multiple sources were found and haven't been contested, with a firm balance in favour of keep, I'm going to close this as showing consensus in favour of Keep.

John will have to do something suitable to become more notable than his name-not-sake Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Lambert (naval historian)[edit]

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

No sources indicating that Lambert or his works are notable. A Google search provides zero information about him at all, discounting primary sources listing him as an author. Loafiewa (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability. As far as I know he is not related to me at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by Johnpacklambert, who is not related to the subject of our discussion at all!!! Celestina007 (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent coverage, failing WP:BASIC; barely more notable than our very own John Lambert Spiderone 23:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR as works are well known/have reviews, (btw the Gooooog is not everything:)), Worldcat shows the following: Allied Coastal Forces Of World War II (jointly written by Al Ross), held by around 130 libraries(?) (libraries listing here plus here), reviews listed include Northern Mariner - vol. 1 listed here, vol. 2 listed here, Warship International - vol. 1 here, vol. 2 listed here, United Services (journal of The Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies NSW) - here, The Mariner's Mirror - here, subscription required, (so has multiple reviews and is entitled to a wikiarticle, Whoop!!!); The Fairmile 'D' Motor Torpedo Boat held by 70 libraries, reviews listed include Northern Mariner - here, Warship International - here; The Submarine Alliance (jointly written by David Hill), held by 70 libraries, reviewed by Warship International - listed here; Norman Friedman thinks highly enough of Lambert to have authored/edited two books based on his papers - British Naval Weapons Of World War Two: The John Lambert Collection Volume 1, Destroyer Weapons (2019) held by 475 libraries, British Naval Weapons Of World War Two: The John Lambert Collection Volume 2, Escort and Minesweeper Weapons (2019) held by 17 libraries. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR. Mztourist (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Australian Naval Institute also reviewed Allied Coastal Forces Of World War II vol. 1 here. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A serious author on a relatively narrow subject. I regard Conway Maritime as the leading publisher in the field of the history of naval architecture, so that the books are likely to be the definitive works on their subject, until some one produces something better. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR as amply demonstrated above by Coolabahapple. Kges1901 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing and works appear to satisfy notability requirements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR as per Coolabahapple Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen M. Long[edit]

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

This is a resume of a minor government official that's been turned into an article. The sourcing in the article mostly pads the resume and I was unable to find reliable and verifiable sources in a Google search that would support a claim of notability with in-depth coverage. Alansohn (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename: I ran across this person because of separate research on COVID-19 responses by local governments, and I was surprised that the person who in effect serves as the deputy mayor of New Jersey's third largest city did not have a Wikipedia entry. I was also surprised to see that the Wikipedia entry for Paterson, New Jersey did not even have updated information to include her. "Kathleen Long" appears in numerous newspaper articles weekly, and it appears that she often serves as the chief spokesman of the municipal government in Paterson and the point of contact for government operations. For instance, a recent Google search gave the following results showing six newspaper articles in the last three weeks alone. I also noticed that she attends every city council meeting as a representative of the city administration, and is all over the city's YouTube page. Perhaps it would be better to change from Kathleen M. Long to Kathleen Long (New Jersey) or something similar to that, because there is already a main page for the English pianist Kathleen Long? --Vlaams243 15:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete deputy mayors of virtually no city anywhere are notable. Paterson, New Jersey is clearly not one of the rare exceptions to this rule, and Long is clearly not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deputy mayor of a city is not a position that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — even actual mayors aren't automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just for existing — but the quality, depth and range of sourcing shown here is not enough to make her the exception to the rule. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:OR. We do not publish interviews and original research. If an attempt was made to fix it, I would re-consider. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls well short of NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:10, 12 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. Not quite sure why this was originally relisted, but in any case, consensus that notability was not proven Nosebagbear (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abuelas: Grandmothers on a Mission[edit]

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

Non notable short film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to help it pass WP:NFILM. Wikipedia is not IMdB. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The referencing here is almost entirely blogs, YouTube videos and other primary sources that are not support for notability, and the film's strongest notability claim (awards at second-string film festivals) would be fine if the references were good ones but aren't "inherently" notable enough to exempt the references from having to be good. Bearcat (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think we have at least a weak consensus to keep this, though it may be that this gets revisited. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flix (programming language)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability.

Created by editor with COI. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Flix --Guy Macon (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not voting, but I'm just mentioning some things. COI editors are told to go through AFC and mention their COI (which they did on the article's talk page). I approved the draft because I think that it has some chance of being notable based on where it was developed and who funded it. I also took into account that it could potentially be merged into a related article if it doesn't have independent notability per an AfD. While I do agree that notability is a concern, I don't think the warning tag on the creator's talk page about COI was acceptable. SL93 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw 160 edits by JorKadeen in the history of the Flix_(programming_language) page. I didn't catch the fact that those were done in userspace and then the history was moved. I have recommended that the COIN case be closed with no action required. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Guy Macon It's fine. I'm sorry if I came across as rude. I should have realized that it was simply you not noticing. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The research behind this language has a good reputation in a subfield, implementation of DATALOG-based languages, whose importance is seeing a surge of recent recognition (cf. Huang, Green & Loo 2011, Datalog and Emerging Applications: An Interactive Tutorial). The article that introduced the language implementation effort has an h-index of 11, respectable for a 4-y.o. language. The article is well-written, with less puffery than is typical for PL articles without a trace of CoI editing. As a general point, I think this AfD is undermining to the AfC process: if an article graduates from the AfC process, a little care putting together the AfD is in order, and to give as the whole deletion rationale "No evidence of notability" is careless when the first paragraph of the article ends "Two notable features of Flix are its type and effect system and its support for first-class Datalog constraints" and the references section contains two peer-reviewed articles whose title mentions that language by name. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I saw 160 edits by JorKadeen in the history of the Flix (programming_language) page. I didn't catch the fact that those were done in userspace and then the history was moved. I have apologized for my error, but let me apologize again: sorry about that.

WP:NSOFT has the following criteria:

"It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement."

Maybe. Could you please list the reliable sources discuss Flix as being significant in its particular field? The source you cite above ( Datalog and Emerging Applications: An Interactive Tutorial). does not contain the word "Flix". It says "We discuss two active commercial systems, LogicBlox and Semmle", "We also review two important academic systems from the classical age of Datalog research, Coral and LDL++", and "Finally, we highlight the ongoing BOOM project, based on a Datalog dialect called Dedalus" (I believe that this is the BOOM project at [ http://boom.cs.berkeley.edu/ ] not the one at [ https://www.theboomprojectbook.com/ ] that shows up in a Google search.)

"It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction."

Nope, Flix fails this one.

"It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews,[2] written by independent authors and published by independent publishers."

Nope.

"It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability."

Nope again.

In addition, most of the sources are papers by authors of the language (Magnus Madsen[10]) you tube videos by the same authors or citations to flix.dev.

The last thing I want to do is to step on any AFC toes, but if you are going to claim that we need to "take extra care if an article graduates from the AfC process" then when the page leaves AFC it should clearly show that reliable secondary sources establish notability. I should have looked at the page and seen that it was obviously notable. Instead here I am, asking you for evidence of notability after you cited as evidence an abstract that doesn't mention Flix. I suspect that the full paper either doesn't mention Flix or only mentions it in passing. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry: my complaints were rather heavy-handed in my comment; it can be easy to overlook that an article indeed graduated from the AfC process. With regards to notablity, the article I linked to predates Flix by several years and is about the recent resurgence of interest in Datalog in general and discusses several desirable features for software support that Flix satisfies; for an article that indicates what the motivation of Flix is in particular and how it is well-suited to achieve it, look at Flix and its Implementation: A Language for Static Analysis which situates the value of Datalog-like languages in expressing static analyses declaratively and the value of particular original features of Flix with regards to this goal, namely the ability to specify arbitrary lattices as constraints on Datalog queries and the value of being able to manipulate Datalog programs as first-class values. Static analysis is a fundamental technique used in compiler optimisation. With regards to NSOFT, I think the references meet the 1st criterion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
- Flix is being developed at the Department of Computer Science at Aarhus University (AU) [ https://cs.au.dk/research/programming-languages/projects/ ]. AU is the top-ranked CS department in Denmark (according to the Times Higher Ed [ https://cs.au.dk/news-events/pages/2021-the-world-university-ranking/ ]).
- Research on Flix is supported by a grant of 2.5M DKK (~400,000 USD) from the Independent Research Fund Denmark (DDF), a public funding agency in Denmark (see article ref 2).
- Flix is the subject of 2 papers published at OOPSLA and 1 paper published at PLDI (see article ref 12, 5, 6). OOPSLA and PLDI are both considered top-venues for programming language research. Both are ranked A+ by CORE [ https://www.core.edu.au/ ]. OOPSLA and PLDI are peer-reviewed, double blind, conferences that are part of the PACMPL journal [ https://dl.acm.org/journal/pacmpl ].
- The original Flix paper (see article ref 12), now 4 years old, has 59 citations according to Google Scholar. This includes papers published at other A+ ranked conferences, including POPL, ICFP, and OOPSLA.
  - A selection of non-trivial references to Flix with between a few sentences or multiple paragraphs of text (this is not a complete list nor is it in any particular order and can be added to the references of the article):
    - Datafun: A Functional Datalog [ https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~nk480/datafun.pdf ] - Arntzenius et al. - ICFP research paper.
    - Seminaïve Evaluation for a Higher-Order FunctionalLanguage [ https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~nk480/seminaive-datafun.pdf ] - Arntzenius et al. - POPL research paper.
    - Automatically Testing Implementations of Numerical Abstract Domains [ https://mariachris.github.io/Pubs/ASE-2018.pdf ] - Bugariu et al. - ASE research paper.
    - Sound and Reusable Components for Abstract Interpretation [ https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3360602 ] - Keidel et al. - OOPSLA research paper.
    - Testing Static Analyses for Precision and Soundness [ https://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/cgo20.pdf ] - Taneja et al. - CGO research paper.
    - Securify: Practical Security Analysis of Smart Contracts [ https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.01143.pdf ] - Tsankov et al. - CCS research paper.
    - Formulog: Datalog for SMT-Based Static Analysis [ https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.08361.pdf ] - Bembenek et al. - OOPSLA research paper.
    - Self-adaptive static analysis [ https://bodden.de/pubs/bodden18selfadaptive.pdf ] - Bodden - ICSE 18 research paper.
    - FlowSpec: Declarative Dataflow AnalysisSpecification [ https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3136014.3136029 ] - Smits et al. - SLE research paper.
    - Incrementalizing Lattice-Based Program Analyses in Datalog [ https://szabta89.github.io/publications/inca-oopsla.pdf ] - Szabo - OOPSLA research paper.
    - EXTENDING PARALLEL DATALOG WITH LATTICE [ https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/17756qxg2 ] - Qing Gong - PhD Thesis, Pennsylvania State University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JorKadeen (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Flix is the subject of additional papers published at ISSTA, CC, and PPDP (ranked A, A, and B by CORE). These venues are also peer-reviewed.
- Flix is used as part of two courses at AU; a pre-talent track course on logic programming and a master-level course on program analysis.
- Flix has been the subject of multiple bachelor/master theses at Aarhus University and at the University of Waterloo, Canada.
- Flix has been discussed multiple times on Reddit, HackerNews, LambdaTheUltimate, and other social media.
- As stated on the talk page and on the article talk page, I have a conflict of interest. JorKadeen (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have them, please add links for the above sources so that any editor can go there and verify the claim. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ~~has been discussed on Reddit~~ per the strength of the peer-reviewed sources above and in the article. Bachelor's/Master's theses aren't really significant but there's plenty that is. — Bilorv (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Danish folk have a particular skill in developing programming languages and this shows promise. scope_creep^Talk 20:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: How are the Danes at cooking, car repair and log-throwing? I believe we may have some missing articles if notability is connected to country of origin! Possibly (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the way they have gone about this is wrong, and the article in its current state is promotional and inadequately sourced. I counted 18/29 references as being non-independent. JorKadeen above apparently works for them. This is plainly a promotional effort and the article in its current state does not show enough in the way of recognition in good, independent sources. As is often said, please do not make article about yourself; if you are notable, someone else will do it independently. Possibly (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This article went through the AfC process with declared COI. JorKadeen (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- W.r.t. sourcing, please see the above list of peer-reviewed research literature. These references can be used to supplement or replace the references currently in the article. JorKadeen (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JorKadeen: Please let those without a stake in the article discuss it. Possibly (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- The way this article has been created is exactly as is recommended in the AfC process: JorKadeen has done no editing of this article in article space, only in user and draftspace, and the article was promoted from draftspace by SL93 after it had been there with the AfC review notice for about 10 weeks. Apart from a little, easily corrected, language in the Overview section, I do not find anything in the article to be at all promotional: could you be more specific? — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalst: If we allow it to be in the wiki, we have been gamed. The article contains very few independent sources. Anything with Magnus Madsen is not independent. Anything with Flix.dev in the source is not independent. Once I remove those items from the 29 sources provided, there are perhaps six sources or so that might be RS. I cannot see them though, and they appear to be theses and the like. These sources and text have been placed on wiki (in draft) by a COI editor, who also advocates for it above in this discussion. The article itself is a whopping 50KB. the article on PHP is 112KB by comparison. This a huge puffed-up article for something supported by very few in-depth sources. it is an advertising effort. It is not as important as it makes itself out to be. Possibly (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your !vote because your delete rationale began with a false accusation. I do not care if Wikipedia is 'gamed' if that results in well-written, neutral, verifiable articles being produced without causing undue work for the Wikipedia community. I count four peer-reviewed articles among the sources that substantively discuss Flix coming from three entirely independent research efforts. Additionally, articles written by project members that are published in peer-reviewed conference proceedings and journals are reliable, though not neutral, sources - while they will not count towards SIGCOV, they are perfectly acceptable sources per WP:V - but your delete rationale seems to be treating these sources as if they were self-published or advertising materials. You have provided no delete rationale that is consistent with both the facts and policy (article length is not an accepted delete justification, cf. WP:ASZ). — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The vast majority of the citations on this article are primary sources, and on deeper examination, those that are not sourced directly to Flix are to papers written by those who are affiliated with the lab at the university where this prog lang was developed. Pure unadulterated WP:PROMO. It does nothing for the integrity of the encyclopedia to include this sort of COI material. These non-independent sources do not constitute SIGCOV whatsoever. Fails our policy/guideline criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The work on Flix is referenced by researchers on rival projects: Datafun (see Arntzenius & Krishnaswami 2020) and IncA (see Szabó, Bergmann, Erdweg & Voelter 2018); both of these works by unaffiliated and critical researchers are referenced in the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the editor that accepted the AFC submission, I am convinced by the deletion arguments that the sources are not independent of the subject. Votes such as "Danish folk have a particular skill in developing programming languages and this shows promise." never sway me either. An alternative could be sending it back to AFC, but I really don't think it's necessary unless notability can be show here. SL93 (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was rated C-Class in AfC. –Cupper52^Discuss! 10:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Cupper52 It was certainly not start-class or stub-class with its length so I chose the next status which was C. I, as the AfC reviewer, now agree with its deletion so I don't think the rating I gave it is relevant. SL93 (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous articles and papers in which this programming language is mentioned. LeBron4 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let us at least give it time to be more noticed by independent sources, which seems likely. --Bduke (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources listed so far do not establish notability. For example, go to [11] or [12] and search on the word "Fix". I can do a web search myself and find every page that mentions Flix in passing. Can someone please name some sources that contain significant coverage? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three sources, from my comments above, which are peer-reviewed articles from rival researchers:
1. Arntzenius & Krishnaswami 2020, 2nd work citing Flix from the DataFun team;
2. Szabó, Bergmann, Erdweg & Voelter 2018, from the IncA team;
3. Bodden 2018, a kind of position statement from the Heinz-Nixdorf Institute's (Paderborn, Germany) working group in Software Engineering.
All are substantive, all have positive things to say about Flix, all argue for different approaches than the Flix team does. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my position to Neutral based upon the above. I may change this to keep after I actually read the citations. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chalst's sources show this meets GNG; it is debable by how much, but it is definitely across the line. // Timothy :: talk 00:32, 10 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 02:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis González (actor)[edit]

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

This is a little messy and complicated: the Colombian footballer is notable... but the problem is, this article isn't really about the footballer. This article was originally created about a very minor Venezuelan actor – you can see the original version of the article here. Then an IP decided to overwrite the original article with the footballer with this edit, and the two articles became conflated, so the current version now describes the subject as both "an ex-actor and a footballer". As I stated, the footballer passes WP:N but already has his own more complete article at Elvis González (footballer), so this incorrect semi-duplicate version of his biography is not needed, and is factually wrong in its description. And it doesn't seem worth reverting to the version about the actor, as he isn't notable... one minor role in a Chilean horror movie, and selected as a cast member in a TV series which ultimately never got made. Richard3120 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on basis that actor and footballer are separate people. I am insure why the IP's overwriting of the article was not reverted (I have done so now). Giant Snowman 10:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one minor role only so fails NACTOR by a long way Spiderone 11:08, 10 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) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable television film, no significant coverage from independent sources, per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 10:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brad Krevoy#Christmas and Family Movies (2013–present). Foxnpichu (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Dutch review at [[13]] Donaldd23 (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This movie lacked sources. I have improved a bit by adding more info and sources. A Google search will being over 5 pages of results mentioning the movie, so I feel there is significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the sources that you added to the article are not what I would call significant coverage. Some of them literally just mention the film in a list of titles, others have a short plot summary in a listicle-type article about general Hallmark Christmas films. BOVINEBOY2008 20:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually 15 pages of Google News results for this movie. I have not checked every single one, but most of the ones that I checked had a description of the film. Based on so much coverage, I decided to vote keep. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those suggesting there is notability might be advised to present their three strongest sources.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This high-end, international film production is solidly notable and *not* your average Hallmark holiday flick. Like Expertwikiguy said, a quick Google search proves how popular this movie is. Turner Classic Movies lists it, Hollywood's KTLA covers it, and the UK's The Independent has it as the news article's cover. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 23:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- With all do respect, TCM has entries for most Hallmark movies (see https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/2084498/12-Gifts-of-Christmas/, http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/2084521/Once-Upon-a-Holiday/, https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/2084511/enwp, etc), KTLA looks like it is just a listing of the film (not significant coverage), and the Independent doesn't even mention the film by name except for in one caption of an image about a larger conversation about Christmas TV movies.

Like I said, this is an internationally notable film, in the US/Canada, UK, and Netherlands like Donaldd23 stated above. It appears on Parade (magazine), see here, also TCM lists a few (not all thousands of Hallmark movies) and the KTLA link is a video interview, not a listing. This film even has articles in German and Portuguese Wikipedia plus its Wikidata entry with more sources. This is clearly a speedy keep. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 03:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig ^talk 00:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Verde Center[edit]

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

2010 article about a local green energy centre. Refbombed but I don’t think it ever was notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing does not actually rise to the level of showing this is a notable institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting owing to age of article rather than soft deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale provided by Mccapra. Notability isn’t just there. Celestina007 (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is written like an advertisement; it tells what Mission Verde Center will offer or undertake. As per Mccapra this is refbombed. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A slew of "references" that provide no information about the topic. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sita Ram Goel. There is consensus that this topic is not notable for a stand-alone article. All content from the article will be accessible in the page history and can be added to Sita Ram Goel, keeping in mind that you have to cite a reliable source. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How I Became a Hindu[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this to meet the basic threshold for notability. Auxentios (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into the article about the author. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Written by a highly notable person, the book passes WP:NBOOK and WP:BOOKCRIT. A detailed review of the book can be found in following scholarly sources:

What Is Hinduism?. Himalayan Academy Publications. 2007. p. 133. ISBN 978-1-934145-27-2.
Sivaya Subramuniyaswami (2002). How to Become a Hindu: A Guide for Seekers and Born Hindus. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 70–. ISBN 978-81-208-1811-8.
Encyclopaedia Indica: Independent India and wars - I. Anmol Publications. 1996. p. 146. ISBN 978-81-7041-859-7. ...Noted Indian historian Sita Ram Goel , his wife and first son were witnesses to the riots . He writes in his autobiographical work " How I became a Hindu " that he " would have been killed by a Muslim mob " but his fluent Urdu and his Western dress saved him. And he writes that on the evening of the 17th he and his wife and son...

WP:BEFORE is relevant here. Eliko007 (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the author page, There is coverage about the author but at best trivia ones about the book. Hardyplants (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources mentioned by Eliko above. killer bee  13:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable book. None of the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT is meeting here. All books written by a notable person do not automatically become notable by inheritance. Excerpts and mentions only prove that this is not a hoax article, these links by themselves do not prove notability. The notability bar has been set higher as we cannot have article on every book. (see below points) Walrus Ji (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- [1] Himalayan publisher link is a book that posts an excerpt. The publisher is not well known or reliable.
- [2] The link from "Motilal Banarsidass" is an excerpt by a non notable author.
- [3] Anmol Publications not well known or reliable.

A notable book will have enough reviews and coverage in the reliable source so that enough material will be available to write a Wikipedia article on the same. This is not the case here. The lack of critical review by noted scholars, is itself a big giveaway that this is not a notable book. Without a reliable source backing the contents, I cannot support a merge.Walrus Ji (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Doesn't need its own article, but maybe could be included in author's article. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Foxnpichu, note that the content in the article is totally unsourced and possibly incorrect and WP:Original Research. Merge is not recommended in such case. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Walrus Ji - Well, would a redirect be better? Foxnpichu (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article about author. Archrogue (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article about author. // Timothy :: talk 23:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage revealed by Eliko007. 67.80.214.83 (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about the author. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to author's aarticle. Spudlace (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spudlace, Ngrewal1, Timothy, Archrogue, Hardyplants, and Oaktree b:, you guys have asked to merge. Merge what exactly? Unless there is a reliable source supporting the content to merge, nothing can be merged. See my earlier comment above.Walrus Ji (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walrus Ji: It's verifiable that the book exists so if nothing else can be reliably sourced that fact can be added to the author's article and the redirect preserved. Spudlace (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spudlace, The book is already listed in the author's bio. Indeed, there is nothing to merge. If you are !voting for a redirect, then you can clearly say that. !voting as merge gives an impression that you are approving the unsourced content to be moved to the author's bio. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sita Ram Goel, where it is mentioned. As the article currently stands there is no sourced content to merge. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say merge, but since there is nothing to merge, Redirect it to author's article. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources provided by Eliko. The analysis of the sources that the author providing coverage to the book needs to be notable is pretty nonsensical. --Yoonadue (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yoonadue's comment that basically means, "every source out there should be considered reliable by default", is in fact the most nonsensical argument in this thread. Please read WP:"Reliable" Source once again. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. leaning towards a WP:HEY keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Amir[edit]

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

I additionally nominate the following substantially identical article about his relative:

Additional editing by the author pointed out that Ahmed won the Gaumee Film Award for Best Background Music, which should be sufficient to meet WP:NMUSIC for the subject matter. I withdraw as to Ahmed Amir. FalconK (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article about a musician with little to no coverage in WP:RS, speedied A7 in 2011. A cursory search for sources turns up nothing. They may be attempting to WP:INHERIT notability from their clearly notable sister Fazeela Amir. FalconK (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure if I can comment, but if I may, I would like to clarify that these two are notable singers who have contributed to the local music industry for decades. Ahmed Amir has received one of the most prestigious awards given to individuals in Maldives and sources have included for the same. Since most local articles are published in native language, searching with these taglines އަހްމަދު އާމިރު and އިބްރާހިމް އާމިރު provide coverage in reliable sources like Mihaaru, Sun and Avas to name a few. Also, since the Discography part is large, I though of keeping the career part small and was planning to include additional sources for reliability. ShappeAli (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you can comment - you can also !vote keep if you want! If you add a few independent reliable sources to the articles and clearly meet the notability guidelines for musicians, I'll withdraw my nomination. Keep in mind too, Wikipedia is not paper and there's no length limit for these articles, as long as only relevant information is included; feel free to include as much cited material that shows their importance as you can find. FalconK (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think more is still needed to show Ibrahim is notable. An article about him, a notable award he has won, or anything else listed at WP:NMG would do the trick. Otherwise it might be best to discuss Ibrahim as part of the articles on his two related artists. FalconK (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Have included an article about him and an a nomination he has received, with source. ShappeAli (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, per the considerable expansion that's taken place since the article's nomination in late December. It's gone from 5 references to 13, and its content has gone from a couple sentences to a couple paragraphs. While I don't know much about the SunFM awards (or what constitutes a "well-known" music award in the Maldives), it's a fairly small country (about 500,000 people live there) so I am inclined to lean towards the benefit of the doubt. jp×g 22:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Given the lack of further participation in just shy of 2 weeks, the actual policy-backed !votes show a clear consensus for delete Nosebagbear (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saratoga Elementary School (North Omaha, Nebraska)[edit]

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

A defunct [14] elementary school. All references in the article are dead but [15] summarizes the history. Being "one of the first public schools in the state of Nebraska" isn't a sufficient claim of notability; the building has been replaced multiple times so it isn't a notable architectural landmark either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what I can tell, this defunct elementary school has an important role in the development of public education in Nebraska (and specifically Omaha). The article seems to be similar to other articles about elementary schools. LeBron4 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The links are dead because the article is old. The school was one of the first in a major American city, and the result of a pioneer education system from 150 years ago. It should be kept. Freechild (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NSCHOOL says that primary schools need to pass either WP:GNG or WP:ORG. This school appears to pass neither. Other than the single northomahahistory.com reference mentioned above, I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage of this school in any independent sources. Neither am I seeing any independent evidence that this school has any significance beyond potentially being one of the oldest public schools in its town. CThomas³ (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It takes extremely strong sourcing to justify keeping an article for an elementary school, which is not present here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT), lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Four of the five sources in the article are from the school or local government, not IS RS for establishing notability. The final source is 404 with no indication it had SIGCOV. The above keep votes have provided no additional sources showing SIGCOV from IS RS. There is no indication or assertion that this meets WP:NBUILD. I'm sure it's a wonderful school, but the article does not have SIGCOV showing notability. // Timothy :: talk 00:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving a little more time to see if GNG compliant sourcing can be found given the claims of significance made by some keep !voters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 6 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. Despite some disagreement, a consensus feels that the sources provided by GoldenAgeFan are suitable to show notability. If an individual could add to article, that would be appreciated Nosebagbear (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Judson[edit]

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

No reliable sources came out from an independent research and none are in the article. the subject doesn't appear to be notable AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google news searches show numerous articles about this person, both as Tom Judson and as Gus Mattox. The article is poorly referenced and quite incomplete (leaving out his regular role in a TV series, for example, but the deletion nomination seems to have been made in haste. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: Nice, why don't you share with us these wonderful sources. I couldn't find any convincing sources that actually proved notoriety but i might have missed something. if you found any reliable sources which establish notoriety please share them with us so if u don't want to add them yourself someone else can do it. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a good amount of sources out there (ranging from the NY Times to gay and theater websites/publications) covering Judson and his projects, ranging from his relatively short, but successful porn career, his one man shows (Canned Ham, The Tom Judson Show, and Nature Boy), his house flipping side job, and Charles Busch's musical director. So at the very least, meets the GNG and those sources could be used to flesh out the article. A sampling of them. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenAgeFan1: none of them can be considered in any way an independent, in-depth cover of the subject. they are all just passing mentions or promotional stuff and this is the reason why those sources are not in the article yet... I would like to see any independent, reliable, extended cover of the subject... 10 lines is not extended. unfortunately here most of the times the only thing that matters is how many vote u had even though those votes are not supported by any fact. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those looked like they were done by someone connected to him (hence independent), most of those sources I cited cover him and/or his works to non-trivial degree and none them look like press releases to me (something that is promotional). It doesn't matter that they haven't been put in the article yet or the state of the article, it's just that they exist. See WP:NEXIST. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that there were only "10 lines" of coverage in the said coverage linked above. I'd love to know what you think makes those sources unreliable or unsuitable, especially the NY Times one (widely considered to be generally a reliable source here on wikipedia). No one else so far seems to agree with your assessment that Judson isn't notable enough to vote delete and there is almost always a delete vote or two on anything porn related (although Judson has coverage relating to others things). The closing Wikipedia admin also makes a call on the arguments and evidence provided, so it takes more than just one or more adamant person(s) to decide whether an article is kept or deleted. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looked at the first three sources provided by GoldenAgeFan1 above and didn't need to see the rest or conduct a BEFORE. Significant coverage in reliable sources are met. Subject passes WP:GNG, if nothing else. No SNG's needed to keep this article. Don't care what the notable subject does or how they became notable. Once criteria is met they can receive an article for inclusion.. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. Meets WP:GNG. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with other keep voters. This passes WP:GNG. It needs to update with references though. - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chris Broach. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Firebird Band[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate notability. Fails WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only sources are myspace, band's website, and facebook. A cursory google search didn't turn up anything better. RHirsch1770 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete They were alternative darlings for a minute in the early 2000s. (I remember!) I added two references from Pitchfork, and one from The Cleveland Scene, but couldn't find much else online. JSFarman (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chris Broach. Geschichte (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards South[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating this article for deletion, and note that there are content forks that I think should also be deleted:

1st Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards South
2nd Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards South

Before anyone comments on this, it is imperative that you get some background information present at WP:DADASAHEB. If it's too much to read, the short version is:

Dadasaheb Phalke was a pioneer in Indian cinema. Every year the Indian government issues a single award in his name, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, to a person who has made an extraordinary contribution to film. It is like a lifetime achievement award.

Award mills are rampant in India and they are used for promotional reasons, including flooding articles here at Wikipedia. There are many awards that use Phalke's name, and this appears to be a film festival that uses his name, and issues awards with his name on them.

This festival appears to be a neophyte that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. If Anil Mishra is the founder of this festival, there is only one article I can find on Google News that talks about the festival and him, and it is not independent. While the press does appear at these festivals to take photos and report on winners, that alone is not sufficient IMO to meet the GNG, and until the community decides on specific notability standards for awards, we should still require that the media report about the festival/award entity itself, not just cover the glitz of it.

Experienced editors know that per WP:FILMCRITICLIST, we are discouraged from adding awards to articles unless there is an existing article about the award, and in this case, the creator of the film festival article appears to have created it just so they could then add the award to various articles.[16][17][18]. (And MANY more...) Infer from that what you may. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all undisclosed paid-for spam with no evidence of notability. See also simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South. GSS ^💬 11:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. -2pou (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:GNG due to a lack of significant, dedicated coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Per nom and blatant promo. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus not notable Nosebagbear (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Body blading[edit]

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

Nothing to suggest notability, very niche extreme sport if even considered one. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Probably better to rewrite the article if and when it becomes notable, considering text size. Sungodtemple (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. We are not fad-pedia. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pritika Swarup[edit]

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

promotional article on non-notable model moved directly from draft by the new contributor in an evasion of the purpose of AFC. The refs are the usual promotional interviews for the field, and are not RSs. For example, the Marie Claire "article" was 99% written by the subject (or perhaps their press agent) The NY Post article is a somewhat more sophisticated version because they seem to have rewritten the text instead of putting it in quotations, but its apparent purpose is to showcase the photos, complete with prices for the clothing. Harpers Bazaar uses some of the same photos, but is devoted to advertising a different set of products, again complete with prices and purchase links. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It includes what commercials she’s been in more than about her. Should get deleted, or should be improved by someone. No sources? I’m not choosing speedy deletion, because there’s a chance that someone can step in to improve this article. Vamsi20 (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing does not indicate this model is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bah, I want to keep this one because she's gorgeous and has seemingly used her position to benefit others. The sources provided feel too much like a commercial or belong in the feel good section of the local newspaper. Her vibes are wonderful but I'm leaning delete. Still looking through a search to find anything that would offer hope of passing GNG. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Edited to delete. I can't make it work. Beautiful person and hopefully someone picks up on her charity work and writes more. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — like Johnpacklambert already stated there isn’t just enough solid sources that substantiates or proves her notability. Celestina007 (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, why does it say she studied in an Ivy League school instead of the actual university name? On Wikipedia, every point must have to source to back it up. Still leaning for delete. Edit: I would lean for keep if somebody improved it (not me, I don’t know things about this model). And whoever improves the article should add proper, reliable sourcing. Vamsi20 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:36, 7 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.

Dhamakapella[edit]

Dr. Seuss: Green Eggs and Ham (video game)[edit]

Adrian Stenta[edit]

Jake Goodship[edit]

BLAG Linux and GNU[edit]

Aid People Change Nigeria Charity and Orphanage Organisation[edit]

Christina Quintana[edit]

Lake Effect (film)[edit]

List of cancelled X68000 games[edit]

Egypt Vision 2030[edit]

PT Perusahaan Perkebunan London Sumatra Indonesia[edit]

Klemens Zamoyski[edit]

Outbreak Management Team[edit]

1973 Equatorial Guinean presidential election[edit]

Kickstart FC[edit]

Newton Henry Mason[edit]

Mohsen Dayani[edit]

July 2019 Southern California wildfires[edit]

Rawat (title)[edit]

Jennifer Hansen[edit]

Gaur City[edit]

Diversity Woman[edit]

List of cricketers by number of international five-wicket hauls[edit]

List of women players who have scored 1,000+ runs in Twenty20 International cricket[edit]

Mortmar, California[edit]

Abdur Razzaq (cricketer)[edit]

Abdul Jabbar (Kalat cricketer)[edit]

Denison Marrs[edit]

SCOA Nigeria[edit]

The Avenue Creative[edit]

Modo, Inc.[edit]

String Quartet Tribute to Coheed and Cambria in Keeping Secret[edit]

Hinarere Taputu[edit]

Ebs Akintade[edit]

Terry Hoff[edit]

IOCG (disambiguation)[edit]

Eros Innovations[edit]

Solo (Brian Harvey album)[edit]

Ash M. Richter[edit]

MaXpeedingRods[edit]

Barbara Radecki[edit]

We're No Dam Experts[edit]

Bertha Mulvihill[edit]

Dodanduwa Weerasooriya's[edit]

Mornsun[edit]

Victory jigsaw puzzle[edit]

Addnode Group[edit]

Bankole Vivour[edit]

Thimble Tickle Bay[edit]

Léopold Hélène[edit]

Imants Bluzmanis[edit]

Zaw Naing Thein[edit]

Ryan Kinder[edit]

Zahida Zarik Khan[edit]

Baroda Football Academy[edit]

Lela Star[edit]

Abu Azaitar[edit]

Digital Signature and Electronic Authentication Law[edit]

Allagash abductions[edit]

Ozhukkinethire[edit]

John Lambert (naval historian)[edit]

Kathleen M. Long[edit]

Abuelas: Grandmothers on a Mission[edit]

Flix (programming language)[edit]

Elvis González (actor)[edit]

Crown for Christmas

Mission Verde Center[edit]

How I Became a Hindu[edit]

Ibrahim Amir[edit]

Saratoga Elementary School (North Omaha, Nebraska)[edit]

Tom Judson[edit]

The Firebird Band[edit]

Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards South[edit]

Body blading[edit]

Pritika Swarup[edit]