Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< November 25	November 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baden Eunson

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

Fails WP:NPROF. KartikeyaS (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. Does not make WP:Prof#C1 on GS citation count. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, he‘s a wellknown person in the business world with great reputation by his works in the fields of Communication skills and Organization development, especially as the author of Behaving – Managing Yourself and Others, Communicating in the 21st Century, Business Writing and Conflict Management. --Hoss (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but evidence is needed. I note that you are the creator and almost sole editor of this BIO. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Do you have a WP:COI in the matter? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR looked somewhat plausible to me, but I didn't find quickly find reviews of his books for it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in absence of reliable independent reviews for WP:NAUTHOR (which I did not find). Citation record is too weak for WP:NPROF C1, and I don't see evidence of other notability criteria, from NPROF or otherwise. The article originator claims the books are influential, but I don't see evidence for that in reliable sources. I'll watch the discussion, and will change my !vote if better sources are found. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if he was truly well known we would have a broad variety of sources about him, which we do not have. He fails to pass notability for either academics or writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayishetu Seidu

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

BLP of a local politician who does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Municipal chief executive of a small town is not an automatic free pass over NPOL, but the article neither suggests a reason why she might be considered notable for other reasons nor cites enough sourcing to get her over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the heads of places under 50,000 are not default notable (maybe even a larger size than that) and the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Looks like we're not going to get a definitive answer on this, despite multiple relists. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Brick

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

This page was first nominated in 2012, and the outcome was Delete. It was recreated shortly afterwards (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 19) but the underlying issue remains. She has appeared in Celebrity Big Brother but this alone is not sufficient to demonstrate lasting notability: her only other claim to fame would be her comments about being so attractive that women hate her, but as David Gerard opines on the talk page this would fail BLP1E. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP2E if Celebrity Big Brother is included. Peter James (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm seeing no evidence of wider notability. I would say WP:TOOSOON if it hadn't been years. I remember the "too beautiful" thing from the meme-o-sphere too, but the only thing anywhere near an RS was the Guardian, and even that was a Comment Is Free blog post. Happy to be shown wrong on this, but that would take some good RS coverage - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This seems to be one of those situations where certain editors object to the details outlining why a person is a notable subject, remove said details from the article, and then claim, "see, they're not notable enough!" Nick Cooper (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could bring RS evidence, that'd do the trick. This is a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article a little to include some details of her career prior to CBB, possibly enough for notability? There are a few articles behind the Broadcast magazine paywall which might be useful if anyone has access Piecesofuk (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- These appear to largely be passing mentions of industry movements, rather than evidence of passing WP:JOURNALIST/WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG - David Gerard (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The new material is cobbled-together passing fragments that really don't seem to meet any general or specific notability requirements. There is no good BLP coverage of the sort that a BLP requires. A redirect per onel5969 may also make sense - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additions by Piecesofuk. Artw (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother (British series 10). Simply not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG for a standalone article, but she is mentioned on the show's target, and that's her biggest claim to fame. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third times the charm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother (British series 10) as advised by Onel. Kolma8 (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not primarily notable for Celebrity Big Brother, so a redirect would be inappropriate. Peter James (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Hysi

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

Technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL due to playing one minute of professional football over three years ago. He left that club in 2017 and has not signed for a club since. He has almost definitely retired from professional football. Most importantly, this fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 19:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG (the sportekspres article is close to in-depth coverage, but there needs to be more, and I can only find his interview with Cray Valley FC which doesn't count for GNG purposes). Jogurney (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is shows how ludicrous the current standard is and exactly why we need to scrap it for something more reasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Nasha

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. There is some good coverage here but The Sun is not an acceptable source. Every other bit of coverage is just routine news about moving clubs or passing mentions in match reports. Spiderone 18:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One Europa League game against a team from Andorra and a non-league career not sufficient.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Havent played a single game for a professional club. Fails GNG Shahoodu (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sliekid (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mock, California

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

As with Alico and Talus, this was another point at which a short spur ran off to a mine from the long-abandoned SP line. Definitely not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of every dot on the map.TH1980 (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NGEO, "populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc.", this community has a GNIS tag as well. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quidster4040 Perhaps you should have looked at the location on the map [1] before voting: This is not a populated place. The WP:GNIS is not a reliable source for determining a place is actually a community, nor does it establish notability. You can see on the topo map from which the GNIS took its data that Mock is the name for a railroad spur, not a community. A negligent user mass-created thousands of articles from the GNIS without bothering to see if the junk he was spewing was actually accurate. Reywas92^Talk 19:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be condescending nor pointy, thanks. Also GNIS is an essay not policy. I still stand that it should be kept. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The article is wrong. You are wrong: "this community" has no basis in fact whatsoever. It was never a community, it is not notable, and you have provided no evidence to to contrary. A GNIS tag means shit, or are this industrial railroad spur in Washington and this railroad junction communities too? Reywas92^Talk 19:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a community, no evidence of notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V if we want to have an article on something which purports to be a populated place, we need a reliable source which says it's a populated place. The burden of proof for showing this is on those who want to keep or retain the content. The GNIS is not a reliable source for this, there are many cases where it has said that something is a populated place when it isn't. There don't seem to be any better sources out there. Hut 8.5 11:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No post office. Newspapers.com was no help, "block" gets confused with "mock". Time and time again, we have seen that GNIS is not sufficient to show notability for a location. Mock was a siding and quarry. Nothing more. This locale does not meet WP:GNG nor as it has no legal recognition nor does it have non-trivial coverage, it meets neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure policy of Donald Trump

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

Pandering cruft, feels written like a PR piece for the current admin in some places, and if not WP:TNT'd, needs major cleanup to be encyclopedic. Wikipedia does not host WP:ESSAYS, and this is very much one.

Due to the topic at hand, reminder to all that you shouldn't make personal attacks. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. While a decent article on the topic could in theory be written, the text accumulated here is more of an impediment to that than a starting point for it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Deletion concerns appear to mostly be based on the fact that it is written like an essay despite the fact the article might be on interest. Remember that AfD is not supposed to be for cleanup. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Foxnpichu, Per the quoted WP:TNT, sometimes articles are irrecoverable junk, and it's easier to start over than salvage. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Under that theory, I suggest a Draftify. That means we can keep any information that might be worthy, and if we feel the remade article isn't good enough, well, it is just a draft. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)*[reply]

Keep. I think this article is alright. It explains without pushing for a particular point of view or another. Readers are of course encouraged to think for themselves on what to make of it. Nerd271 (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and substantially cut. I don't think it's unsalvageable and the topic is clearly notable. I would support removing ~40 percent of the overly detailed/not clearly relevant bits. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, Can you do that? The keep has a lot more weight if the changes are made. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonythedwarf, I'm doing some of it now. But I'm also not responsible for fixing the article that you've brought to AfD. See WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic it is not unsalvageable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Igboamalu

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

Non-notable youth footballer. Four reliable sources all confirm that she has not made a senior appearance [2] [3] [4] [5]. A WP:BEFORE search reveals plenty of mentions in match reports and squad listings but this is all routine coverage and does not amount to passing WP:GNG. Spiderone 17:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our ludicrously low inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 12:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ričards Korzāns

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

Prodded with the rationale Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Deprodded, but entries like this confirms that the Latvian Higher League is half-amateur. Geschichte (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Soccerway reference doesn't go to his article, so this is technically an unsourced BLP. Even if fixed, fails GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NFOOTY as per this source and this one. No sign of being able to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone 17:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the articles fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTBALL, Alex-h (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Allen

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

This is basically a WP:BLPPROD situation, as you can't site a personal website as a "source", especially for a WP:BLP. Article on apparently retired former child actress likely doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, and after a quick search certainly doesn't meet WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything either, apart from a few passing mentions in distinctly unimpressive publications; enough, perhaps, to get around the unref'd BLP problem, but nowhere near enough to establish WP:GNG notability, let alone WP:NACTOR. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete her one role in a notable film is just not enough to show notability and nothing else was substantial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Ryan

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a former Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and I don't believe she meets WP:BASIC either. She is Antony Blinken's wife and has gotten some coverage in the context of his soon-to-be nomination as secretary of state, but WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E counsel against including a biography for that reason alone. Would be happy to be proved wrong. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I don't see what makes the subject any different from any other Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs who has an article. What's more, I can find news articles in a Google search from 2012 to 2017 that could help expand the article in question to fill in her time as an assistant secretary of state. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JayCoop, (1) Do you mean Keep? (2) What makes her different from the other people in that list is that there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV of her, whereas there may be SIGCOV of those other people. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you are able to find SIGCOV of her, please post it. All I can see are articles mentioning her in the context of discussing Antony Blinken, such as [6]. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I didn't do a huge amount of searching but what I did find (and what is already cited in the article) seems to point to there being stuff out there. As for whether everything in the context of Blinken, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/transition-playbook/2020/11/20/biden-rewards-loyalty-791808 is one I quickly found which, although it only has one sentence, mentions her without reference to Blinken. It would probably take a fair bit of digging to get super deep into WP:SIGCOV, but the mere fact that there are a lot of sources you'd have to consult is a good sign in terms of notability. Kingdon (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, OK, I guess I retract the last part in accordance with WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, so feel free to take my non-vote with a suitable amount of salt especially if someone has spent more time looking through the sources than I have. Kingdon (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though most of the coverage I'm seeing is in relation to here husband, there is some significant sources for her, such as [7] [8]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is an event announcement and the second is an interview in a trade journal. We now have three keep !votes, none of which has provided any sources from which a biography could be usefully constructed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these sources could be useful to write a biography. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are both primary sources, which are not evidence of notability. As apparently is the wedding announcement, since it is unsigned and hence probably provided by Ryan and Blinken themselves. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for many, many reasons. You can ask me them if you’d like. Just Piping In (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is routine, and I'm not sure any of these people who have served in this position are automatically notable, especially looking at their bio - might be time for a cull. SportingFlyer T·C 23:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this person is a prominent example of Interfaith marriage in Christianity/Interfaith marriage in Judaism (supposedly, her husband, Blinken is Jewish, see Antony Blinken#Personal life: "In 2002, Blinken married Evan Ryan in a bi-denominational ceremony officiated by a rabbi and priest at Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Washington, D.C.^[1]^[2]...Blinken is Jewish.^[3]"). This is an important subject because so many of Biden's inner circle are either Jewish or married to Jews, such as Kamala Harris, and all three of Biden children married Jews. This is important material for an article such as Interfaith marriage between gentiles and Jews in the Joe Biden presidency. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll raise you a WP:NOTINHERITED. SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer:, I understand your point, but I was adding an additional perspective to the above Keeps. As for my point it's a {{current}}. IZAK (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, please read WP:BASIC. Being one-half of prominent example of interfaith marriage does in no way guarantee that Evan herself is notable. We cannot base a biography on a marriage announcement. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings I see what you are saying, but interfaith marriage is now a distinctive feature of the impending Biden era and she and Blinken, just as Jewish Doug Emhoff has an article that goes with his spouse Kamala Harris, and notably historically Biden's three kids married to Jewish spouses. If it's not notable, it certainly is from the point of view of Interfaith marriage in Christianity/Interfaith marriage in Judaism. But I agree with you, this is not the main reason for making anyone notable on WP. IZAK (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ "WEDDINGS; Evan Ryan, Antony Blinken". The New York Times. March 3, 2002. Archived from the original on December 7, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2013.
^ Cite error: The named reference twp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Kaplan, Allison (2020-11-22). "Long-time Biden aide Blinken most likely choice for secretary of state". Haaretz. Archived from the original on November 24, 2020. Retrieved 2020-11-24.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Going with the deletes here. The keeps didn't really show a consensus in why we should keep this and things like "looks good to me" and "notable historic events" etc, isn't the reason to keep the article (besides, did anyone read the article, LOL) - it's if it meets our inclusion guidelines. And I see a lot of people basing sourcing on known genocide deniers, that's not enough or even makes sense. We already have an article about Armenian genocide denial and related subjects. Please take any discussions to appropriate talk pages. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography of the Armenian Genocide

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

Essentially everything on this article is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Everyone who says it was a genocide is an Armenian nationalist, discredited Turkish sources and genocide deniers like Shaw and McCarthy are portrayed as legitimate sources, and "the west" has been brainwashed by these Armenian nationalists.

Most citations are of a paper written by David Gutman (on which 4/6 sources are by genocide deniers and there is a section titled "Countering the Genocide Narrative") and a book by Gwynne Dyer, who is an open genocide denier. --Steverci (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Steverci (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all seems fine to me. Mccapra (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a POV FORK to me.★Trekker (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FORK of what? Mccapra (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions of genocide deniers.★Trekker (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD nom is a POV response by one editor to a POV article by another. Which POV is more 'correct', and whether two wrongs make a right, I don't know, and it's not something I particularly want to wade into. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adhering to the guidelines is POV? --Steverci (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't think this article needed to be created, the subject could have been covered in the main Armenian Genocide article; not as extensively as here, but then this is IMO too extensive for the subject, anyway. But now that the article exists, I don't see a compelling reason to delete it - even if it were condensed and merged into the main article, the POV would need to be edited out, so might as well keep this article and edit it out. Until then, appropriate health warning tags need to be added. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article serves no purpose other than to host genocidal denial that would've been deleted on the main genocide article, for being views only held by a discredited few. --Steverci (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing inherently genocide-denial'y in the article name "Historiography of the Armenian Genocide", and content under that title could (in theory, at least) be written in any manner, including neutral. Therefore yours seems to me an argument for de-POV'ing the article, rather than necessarily deleting it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article premise is trying to portray genocide deniers as having equal credibility to real historians. It's inherently undue and POV, and cannot be salvaged. The whole article is basically a POV fork created and mainly edited by one user, which has gone largely unnoticed, and would've been instantly reverted if the content was put on the Armenian Genocide article. --Steverci (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:UNDUE and WP:POVFORK. This article will literally only serve as a host/means to fuel revisionist genocide denial, and, indeed, to portray genocide deniers as having equal credibility to the majority, real historians. Anyone who has actively worked within the Armenia-Azerbaijan-Turkey-Iran-Caucasus topic area knows what I'm talking about. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- With the Turks denying that there was a genocide, it is probably better to have an article dealing with the controversy, providing a venue for the deniers to vent their theories, in the hope that the main article can be kept clear of such stuff. This is an article about POVs held about the issue. That is quite different from having an article pushing a controversial POV (which is not allowed). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: We already have Armenian Genocide denial. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:POVFORK that fails to establish that there is a legitimate academic debate sufficiently substantial to warrant an article, rather than an Intelligent Design-style attempt to dress denial up as academic. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article meets GNG and has SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The article is in rough shape, but this isn't a reason for deletion. Here are a few sources (JSTOR + other journal databases have more): [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. // Timothy :: talk 20:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: Gutman and Dyer are genocide deniers. According to that article by Matossian: "One of the outstanding issues in Armenian Genocide historiography has been the inability of historians to come to a consensus regarding the causes, the aim of the perpetrators, and the process of the genocide...These approaches range from arguing that religion and/or nationalism were the main factors leading to the Armenian Genocide, to the argument that the genocide was a contingent event that took place during World War I, represented by a rapid radicalization of the government’s policy toward the Armenians." This article abuses the definition of historiography to portray the genocide as a debatable subject. While it could be a proper article, it would need to be entirely rewritten from its current state, which is why it should be deleted and then possibly remade. --Steverci (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems okay. This request is WP:JDLI. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 17:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you can address WP:NPOV concerns better than dismissing them as personal preference? If you think the content is neutral, make an argument to that effect instead. TompaDompa (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It covers notable historic events. Shadow4dark (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK and redirect to Armenian genocide denial. -gtrmp (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is definitely important. The article is badly written though, and should be overhauled to better reflect the historical debate. T8612 (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can be covered in Armenian Genocide Denial--Addictedtohistory (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addictedtohistory, so, you're not in favour of deleting, but merging? --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 20:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not merging, but using it to as example to enrich the Armenian Genocide Denial article Addictedtohistory (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Addictedtohistory and LouisAragon. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVSPLIT of Armenian Genocide denial. Any useful content could be added to the main article and its relevant sections. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LouisArago. Can be redirected to Armenian Genocide denial as well. Eurofan88 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is a notable one, and in my opinion it isn't bad enough for TNT. The article needs substantial overhaul for NPOV, to indicate the relative acceptance (or lack thereof) of different views, and emphasize that the main debates in recent scholarship are not over whether a genocide happened, but the details of how and why.^[1] (t · c) buidhe 11:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article would need to be rewritten entirely to be about the details of how and why, which is why it's best to delete this one and then someone who is interested can then recreate it properly. --Steverci (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For decades, there *was* a noteworthy debate as to whether there was a genocide. The article needs to state more clearly that the debate is pretty much over, and cover other aspects of the historiography, but not delete everything having to do with superseded or rejected views. (t · c) buidhe 14:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For decades, there *was* a noteworthy debate as to whether there was a genocide. ...No, there never was. --Steverci (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the quote from Taner Akcam in the sources I cited. (t · c) buidhe 05:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going by a translation, it sounds like he's talking about the academic world for any subject in general. Certainly wasn't true for the Armenian Genocide in 2010. --Steverci (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or userfy. What seems clear is that this topic is notable and distinct from the main topics about the genocide and its denial, but that writing about it competently needs exceptional care and skill. In this topic area, a poor article is worse than having no article at all. I know too little about the topic to determine the merits of the present content, but I'm following a simple rule of mine: the article contains Incorrectly Capitalized Section Titles, which indicates that whoever wrote it isn't an experienced Wikipedian, which means that the quality of the content is likely poor. The article should be draftified and only restored after review by qualified editors at WP:AFC. Sandstein 15:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^
Sources:
- Quataert 2006, p. 251. "Indeed, as I state in the second edition, accumulating evidence is indicating that the killings were centrally planned by Ottoman government officials and systematically carried out by their underlings."
- Gutman 2015, p. 177. "Recent developments including the publication of several studies in the Turkish language, however, suggest that such efforts to cast doubt on the genocidal dimensions of the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians are becoming increasingly untenable".
- Suny 2015, pp. 373–374. "One hundred years after the Young Turk government decided to deport and massacre hundreds of thousands of Armenians and Assyrians, the controversies over the Genocide still rage, but the balance has shifted dramatically and conclusively toward the view that the Ottoman government conceived, initiated, and implemented deliberate acts of ethnic cleansing and mass murder targeted at specific ethnoreligious communities."
- Hovannisian 2015, p. 244. "The vast majority of genocide scholars and their organizations worldwide are steadfast not only in their recognition of the Armenian Genocide but also in calling upon others, including the Turkish government, to acknowledge the historical reality and help pave the way toward eventual conciliation."
- Laycock, Jo (2016). "The great catastrophe". Patterns of Prejudice. 50 (3): 311–313. doi:10.1080/0031322X.2016.1195548. S2CID 147933878. important developments in the historical research on the genocide over the last fifteen years... have left no room for doubt that the treatment of the Ottoman Armenians constituted genocide according to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide
- "Taner Akçam: Türkiye'nin, soykırım konusunda her bakımdan izole olduğunu söyleyebiliriz". CivilNet (in Turkish). 9 July 2020. Retrieved 19 December 2020. Artık Türkiye'nin tezlerini ne akademik dünyada ne de siyasi düzeyde ciddiye alan kaldı. Bundan 5-10 yıl önce, akademik dünyada "konunun iki taraf var ve bu iki taraf farklı görüşlere sahip, o halde taraflara eşit mesafede durmalı ve görüşlerine saygı göstermeliyiz" gibi bir fikir taraftar bulabiliyordu. Ama artık böyle düşünen hemen hemen kalmadı. Akademilerde, Türk Hükümetinin tezleri sıradan inkârcı bir görüş muamelesi görüyor ve ciddiye alınmıyor. Siyasi düzeyde de benzeri bir gelişme yaşandı. Türkiye en önemli kalesini, Amerikan Kongresini kaybetti. Batı'da Ermeni soykırımını kabul etmeyen ülke kalmadı gibi. Hatta İslam ülkeleri de soykırımı kabul etmeye başladılar.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom seems to have a chip on his shoulder. Article seems fine, if controversial. Well established event, well-cited article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even other users voting to keep it agree it's both poorly written and cited. If you decide to actually read the article, you should also take the time to read WP:AGF. --Steverci (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The event is well-established, but we have the article Armenian Genocide for that; moreover, as pointed out above, having footnotes is not the same thing as being well-cited. XOR'easter (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Much like with some other famous 20th century genocides, the historiography of the genocide is at least as noteworthy as the genocide itself. ImTheIP (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The historiography is noteworthy, but because it is part of a denialist effort, meaning that coverage of it belongs at Armenian_Genocide_denial#Denialism_in_academia. XOR'easter (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or follow the arguments brought forward by Sandstein and draftify. The article is a mess and if it should exist it should be similar to Functionalism–intentionalism debate which remains the redirect for "Historygraphy of the Holocaust". In summary this should be a serious academic discussion in regards to the historiography, not a validation of denial on a equal term as the academic debate. CutieyKing (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, Addictedtohistory and LouisAragon. - Kevo327 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blackrock, California

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

Older topos label this "Blackrock Springs", and indicate it to be a body of water, not a settlement, though they show a couple of buildings there. More recently it has become the site of a fish hatchery, and at that point the topos start to lalbel it just "Blackrock". But all the buildings there are accounted for by the hatchery. It seems certain there was never a "Blackrock" settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete False mass-produced junk, creator should be banned. Reywas92^Talk 18:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure we should be banning anyone for good faith editing. That being said, there's no evidence of notability for this place. Spiderone 21:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was hardly good faith, he was in fact warned by multiple users when he made them that many, many, many of them were not actually communities yet continued to mass-produce one-liners. He remained defensive when confronted multiple times with how much complete junk he made and has stubbornly refused to acknowledge anything with many notifications for all of these afds and numerous hours of others wasted from so much false and non-notable information added to the project. Reywas92^Talk 06:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Not to be confused with Blackrock Well Blackrock Wells. The Story of Inyo has three trivial mentions of Black Rock Springs, which is quite close. GBooks has a number of trivial references. Confirmed that the Black Rock Hatchery is at this location.

About the mass creation of these articles by User:Carlossuarez46, I agree that this user has generated a huge amount of work for many people. I don't know of a way to prevent this in the future, but I'll go ahead and update their talk page with notices about the California articles that are up for deletion. Looking at User_talk:Carlossuarez46, I see there are many AfDs - we should be sure to add others as they occur. Cxbrx (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Doçi

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet any inclusion guideline Spiderone 20:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 12:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neverwinter Campaign Setting. Or put a dab in. Whatever seems best Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neverwinter

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

Largely WP:INUNIVERSE or sourced from primary sources, fails WP:GNG. This is Wikia material that lacks the secondary notability for a standalone article. Note that this is about the city and not the actually notable game series, Neverwinter Nights. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given how much has been set here I think notability is easily satisfied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST unless some are actually demonstrated._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've started to find and add in sources. I'll continue to do so over the next few days; today is a holiday so I don't have a lot of time right now. Neverwinter is the fictional hub of a bunch of media (videos games, tabletop, novels, etc) and the publication history section can show the transmedia connections between these products. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Disambiguate - At the very least, I think a Disambiguation page needs to be made, as there are at least three distinct articles on things simply called "Neverwinter" - the city that this AFD is about, the MMORPG, and the novel. My feelings are that the content on the fictional city itself should be Merged, likely to Faerûn, as there is very little in reliable, secondary sources that discusses the city itself outside of plot. The issue is that, due to the various, clearly notable games that were named for the city and featured it as a location, it appears as though there are more viable sources than there actually are. However, in the end, the actual reliable, secondary sources, including the ones being used in this article, are actually discussing the notable games (the various incarnations of Neverwinter Nights, or the MMO), and not the fictional location itself in depth. I expect any decision made at this AFD to be somewhat contentious, though, due to these issues. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above and per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, although I feel that Neverwinter (disambiguation) would be wortwhile. BOZ (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and made the aforementioned disambiguation page, since that seemed to make sense. BOZ (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Disambiguate for all the reasons listed above. I think the disambiguation is itself and excellent idea. Timmccloud (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Disambiguate per Timmccloud. Significant coverage exists. Individual sources which do not provide substantial coverage by themselves could be combined in prose to paint a broader picture, and sourcing in the article provides that. Comments and reception about the location of Neverwinter itself exist and could be extracted from numerous game reviews for both NWN1 and NWN2, which have been collated in the respective articles for both subject topics. The only real issue I can see with the article is that the overtly in-universe tone should be adjusted, and of course there's room for improvement in the reception section. Haleth (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or disambiguate to Neverwinter Campaign Setting, Neverwinter (novel), or Neverwinter (video game). This is purely primary or unsourced information that does not meet the WP:GNG separate from the articles covering the fiction itself. Jontesta (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would say the city of Neverwinter as a fictional location and setting is the broader topic, whereas the article Neverwinter Campaign Setting which I presume you consider to be a topic which warrants a standalone article only refers to the 4E supplemental book. If consensus is inclined to merge, contents from both articles could be merged into a new article to demonstrate the notability of Neverwinter as a notable setting for multiple fictional works. Haleth (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or disambuate. This is a well know location due to popularity of setting, but the article is pure fancruft right now, the only section that has some promise is history/origins but it sourced to low quality site [17] (that does not seem independent). There is next to nothing worth merging here (WP:ALLPLOT), so for now I am leaning to redirect or disambiguate, but do ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or rewrite as disambiguation: there really is nothing here that passes the standard at WP:NOT and nothing to merge. The games that use this setting already say it all, and a short disambiguation page would work. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or disambiguate - In universe or mostly primarily sourced is not relevant to deletion, per WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, and WP:ARTN. Others above have begun to better cite the article, which is the legitimate solution to those concerns. As someone unfamiliar with the topic, I find the arguments in favour of deletion to be thoroughly unconvincing, treading the edges of WP:RUBBISH and WP:WEDONTNEEDIT (which confuse snobbery for policy). I'm willing to change my mind if someone presents a better argument for it not passing WP:GNG. Dark knight 2149 00:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The core fictional topic seems to lack anything that can be called significant coverage. The above idea about cherry picking minor quotes from reviews is not how to build an article. We need significant commentary to be the focal point of the article. The rearranging idea is definitely good regardless of how this goes. TTN (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - Disambiguation is an ok idea too but the real issue is there are three different series called Neverwinter Nights which probably needs its own disambiguation. The sources here are off topic but would add some publication history to the Faerun article that doesn't have yet. Archrogue (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as Rorshacma points out, the decent sourcing in this piece is about the notable games, not the fictional city, which this article is about. The fictional city does not have enough in-depth sourcing from reliable, independent sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haleth. I would like to help out Sariel Xilo in searching and adding those separated sources, but with so many articles being nominated for deletion in a short period, that would require more time. Daranios (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basic googling/google scholar show that WP:NEXIST. A little bit of before goes a long way. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you finding by Googling that actually discuss the city itself in depth? As already discussed in length before, simply googling gives plenty of results on the notable games that share a title, such as Neverwinter Nights, which already have articles. Not on the actual fictional city itself. Rorshacma (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neverwinter Campaign Setting, all found sourcing is about the game, not the fictional setting. As a result, it fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable/disambiguate I'm not finding any non-in-universe coverage of this topic, but a dab page would be helpful for other topics called "Neverwinter". (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please propose a Wikipedia:Merging in the proper way. I think that's your best option, or you can improve the article. Seems like deletion isn't really ideal, so improve or merge. Missvain (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic

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

I don't see what makes this different from Fantastique. Maybe some parts of this could be moved over to that article but a lot of the content is written in an unencyclopedic tone. I also don't think that this "genre" (or whatever) is the main topic of the word "Fantastic". ★Trekker (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I made a journey over to Wikidata to check out this article and Fantastique's items, and turns out there seems to be a major cluster-fu** going on in regard to what pages are connection to each other as far as fiction, speculative fiction, fantasy, Fantastique, etc are concerned. The Russian article located at this article item does not seem to be about the same thing as this article tries to be about. "Общелитературная фантастика" appears to translate to General literary fiction. Very confusing.★Trekker (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and move Fantastic (disambiguation) to this title. Fantastic and Fantastique read as if they are on the same topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and move as suggested by power~enwiki. This appears to be a redundant article on the exact same topic as Fantastique. Rorshacma (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is about Todorov's conception of the fantastic, and cites several scholarly books (Brooke-Rose, Capoferro, Jackson, Siebers, Traill) that extensively engage with that conception and strongly indicate its notability. It's not hard to find many more good sources on the subject: [18], [19], [20], [21]. To the extent that this article covers the same ground as fantastique it's because the latter article is much more muddled, much less well-sourced, and probably not about a notable topic. If there were to be a merge it should be that article (or whatever parts of it are salvageable) that's merged into this one, not the other way around. (I wouldn't object to moving the disambiguation page to the base name and this to fantastic (genre) or similar, but that needn't be decided here.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Arms & Hearts: I think both these articles are very poor, when reading this page I could not understand what it was supposed to be about. If you are correct and this is about a separate thing from the other article, then this page needs to become far more clear about that and rewritten to not sound like an essay.★Trekker (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please see the last paragraph of the Definition section of Fantastique, which explains that Todorov's Fantastic is different than what the Fantastique article attempts to explain. Both articles appear to have merit in their own right. This particular article is very well referenced and supported - if the issue is the overlap with Fantastique, I'd like to keep both and encourage some additional work to separate the two apparently disparate topics.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge other article as described by Arms & Hearts. This article is in better shape and more clear. My read of it is that they cover the same ground. I would also support the merge the other way. Either way they could be later split if the sources support it. Archrogue (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So far I've gotten no good consistent agument here. This article being in better shape than the other is not saying much, and does not mean that a merge that way would be helpful.★Trekker (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bartlett, California

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

In the continuing saga of the abandoned SP line in Inyo County, we have this industrial site, home to a series of soda processing concerns, the last which still stands, abandoned for over fifty years. Every mention of this place is with respect to this mining, including Mr. Bartlett himself, an executive with one of the earlier concerns. The processing itself is a notable part of the history of Owens Lake, but not this specific spot. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It had post office. Don't let my weak keep block consensus for deletion of this article. Newspapers.com has mentions of Pittsburgh Plate Glass at Bartlett. GBooks has a paragraph that states that Bartlett was a chemical plant and station. Note that none of the other recent California geography AfDs are present in that book. GBooks has various trivial mentions of Bartlett as a plant and as a post office. Cxbrx (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apart from GNIS (which isn't very reliable), the sources say this was a chemical plant and station. WP:GEOLAND gives near-automatic notability to populated places, but not to chemical plants or stations. They would have to be notable through passing the general notability guideline, which this doesn't. Hut 8.5 11:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, this one had more potential than most of these, but it still comes up short and fails GNG and NGEO. It did actually exist, I believe there must have been a community (very small, but still a community) here based on the businesses, but this is an assumption. In the end there is no SIGCOV, and a assumption there was a community here is not a enough. // Timothy :: talk 05:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 08:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Battalion

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

Film is non-notable, a majority of the citations in this article are about the subject of the documentary but not about the film itself, it does not meet notability guidelines described at WP:NFF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 10:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ until after November 24th. Let's see if anyone reviews the documentary when it comes out. This from Deadline Hollywood indicates some interest, but not finding anything else directly related to the documentary at this time. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Agree with Erik. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Agree with Erik as well. Also, if notabiliy is not achieved after the film release, if other editors feel the page should be deleted, the topic of this battalion can be includeed with War in Afghanistan (2001-present). 10Sany1? (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify in case it becomes notable after its release, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A day after the purported release, I am not seeing any reviews of the documentary. The draft may need to be deleted in the long run. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's after november 24, therefore draftifying until after that date would be pointless. Has the situation changed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. I see no reviews of the documentary in the week after its purported release. Major contributor Tillamook Treasury hardly seems active and may have a COI, seeing that their other main contribution and related article Draft:Christopher Bryde was draftified. Editor can be informed that there can be an WP:UNDELETE request of the article if there are reviews from reliable sources. Pinging other editors 10sne1 and Atlantic306 about my change in stance. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find any reciews either, seems to be a low profile release, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems to be a minor film and not notable. I was not able to find any sort of reviews or anything else in general from a reliable source. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 02:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IMO the policy based arguments are the delete votes but there is clearly no consensus to delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fury in other media

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

Unnecessary article split. This information should be summarized in the main article. We do not need a list of every trivial appearance of the character. The MCU rendition has its own article. The sources in the article are largely promotional or trivial mentions for satisfying WP:V, so there is nothing here to make the topic of "Nick Fury in other media" notable. Unless this should be reformatted into "List of media featuring Nick Fury," this has no reason to exist. I don't particularly think a general encyclopedia has a duty to categorize the every appearance of every single fictional character outside of extensive real world context making it necessary on a per character basis. TTN (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The citations are very unclear and the article also doesn’t explain it that well, ~Cupper (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant, per WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, and WP:HANDLE. Dark knight 2149 19:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nick Fury in other media already does a good job of summarising everything without going into excruciating detail. There's also no way that this would all fit onto the main page. And yes, "In other media" sections are expected to cover all of a character's appearance across multiple forms of media. The only things that don't get covered are brief cameos and trivial references/non-appearances.

Nick Fury's history and appearances through various forms of media are covered extensively by reliable sources as well. More than anything, this looks like fishing around for the next big nomination spree. Dark knight 2149 19:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Character in other media" is also the community-wide standard for articles like this and it has been discussed in the past. If you have a problem with this title format, that is not a concern for AFD. AFD is not clean-up or an activism page for any problems you have with how articles are procedurally handled. Dark knight 2149 19:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Internal project consensus does not matter if the article content fails policies and/or guidelines. As an article, this fails WP:GNG. As a list, it fails WP:LISTN. This does not inherent notability from the parent article because it is not necessary information and the parent article is not too large to accommodate a reasonable summary. Fictional information needs to be summarized if there is no contextual real world information making that necessary. "Brief cameos and trivial references" is a subjective measure of importance, and I would gauge most of this list to be of that level of triviality in the scope of a general encyclopedia. This topic deserves one to three paragraphs in the main article summarizing the most important points. TTN (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that it fails neither of those. Nick Fury's history of being adapted into various forms of media is well documented and covered by reliable sources. If anything, WP:LISTN only supports a keep vote, because it specifies directly "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."

This does not inherent notability from the parent article because it is not necessary information and the parent article is not too large to accommodate a reasonable summary.

This is also incorrect. On top of passing LISTN, the list already is summarised reasonably and doesn't go into unnecessary detail at all. Your insistence that it is "unnecessary information" and "trivial" in itself is a subjective measure of importance, and one that doesn't align with community consensus. "In other media" sections are expected to cover the character's history of appearing in other media. It is "trivial" when we are dealing with cameos and passing references. Fiction is one of the topics covered by Wikipedia. Dark knight 2149 20:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of “Nick Fury in other media” is not notable as a group or individually. That individual pieces of other pieces of media may be talked about is not an indication that this particular topic as a whole has achieved notability. For that, you would need sources specifically talking about the character in mass media as a whole, separate from the comics, which seems impossibly specific. Otherwise, such sources contribute only to the notability of the character.
All fiction needs to be summary style. If the content is exceeding its weight in the main article and lacks the notability to stand alone, then it is not necessary. That indicates the need to trim the section down to its most important parts as indicated by coverage in sources. Listing appearances in which the character is not titular figure is absolutely not a necessary split. TTN (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. It already is summary-style, and per WP:LISTN, only the general topic needs extensive secondary coverage (which it has). On top of that, the appearances themselves act as primary sources and you can likely find most (if not all) of the appearances discussed in the many sources covering this topic anyway. It honestly feels like you're looking for an excuse to mass-nominate as many "other media" articles as you can find. Dark knight 2149 21:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style in this case would mean a summarization of each genre(?) of media. There is no need to list every video game appearance. They are not important for general knowledge on the character. What is important is that the character has appeared in numerous video games, and a proper summarization of the topic would use examples of the most prominent to describe the character's general usage in gaming. There do not appear to be any Nick Fury-based games, but something like List of Superman video games makes perfect sense to exist. "List of video games in which Superman has appeared" would be absolutely unnecessary and bloated. That list does have a small, curated subsection dedicated to that, but that's only a fraction of what would exist in a full list of every game in which the character has appeared. TTN (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as there are insufficient sources to support three separate topics, between the main Nick Fury article, Alternate versions of Nick Fury, and now this Nick Fury in other media. We should not create multiple non-notable WP:CONTENTFORKs that don't meet the WP:GNG as three separate topics and articles. I would also support a merge as that was the consensus at Alternate versions of Nick Fury. Jontesta (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jontesta: Per WP:NEXIST, WP:ARTN, WP:ATD, and WP:HANDLE, that's not how WP:GNG or coverage works. The sourcing in the article has nothing to do with whether something is notable or deleted, which only depends on the existence of extensive coverage. Nick Fury's history of appearing in adapted media is covered extensively outside of Wikipedia. "The sources in the article are insufficient" means nothing as far as deletion goes. Dark knight 2149 21:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nick Fury per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been mentioned in lots of sources and therefore is WP:VERIFIABLE. Just needs a better article name, possibly Nick Fury outside comic books. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic fails stand-alone (GNG) requirements for an article, this is just a catalogue like list of trivia that also fails LISTN. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus: Really? By what measure does it fail either of those?

Per WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

Per WP:LISTN, "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. 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, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."

The topic passes both of those requirements rather easily. Dark knight 2149 22:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: I am not seeing any reliable sources that provide a comprehensive view of "Nick Fury in other media", so GNG/LISTN is failed. But if you want to draw my attention to some sources, please ping me here with links, I am never above revising my view&vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with the main page, but send the information of the Ultimate Marvel's version to it's page if the outcome is merge. As for the amalgamated versions, share it on both pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since people are still voting "merge" for some reason, I figured I should go ahead and post some of the many sources covering Nick Fury's history of appearing in other media. It certainly helps that most (nearly all) of the appearances listed are already individually sourced in the current revision of the article.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160815050341/https://www.ign.com/articles/2012/04/26/the-avengers-nick-furys-tv-history

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/is-avengers-endgame-setting-up-a-nick-fury-movie-1200014

https://web.archive.org/web/20090115224927/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/01/nick-fury-no-mo.html

https://screenrant.com/mcu-nick-fury-actors-almost-cast-george-clooney/

https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/disney-plus-may-2020-fury-files-explained

https://ew.com/article/2008/05/09/success-iron-man/

https://www.vulture.com/2013/06/sam-jackson-would-like-to-guest-on-shield.html

https://www.webcitation.org/6OfnF5tzw?url=http://zap2it.com/blogs/agents_of_shield_0-8-4_recap_a_marvel_movies_regular_comes_to_check_on_the_team-2013-10

https://www.webcitation.org/6SG0zWaGY?url=http://www.wired.com/2013/10/agents-shield-loeb-crossover/all/

https://www.cbr.com/agents-of-s-h-i-e-l-d-ep-talks-ratings-nick-fury-cameo/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/08/18/samuel-l-jackson-sunday-conversation/2665355/

https://www.vulture.com/2014/04/jackson-on-agents-of-shield-finale.html

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/captain-marvel-90s-kevin-feige-brie-larson-1202785738/

https://ew.com/movies/2018/03/09/marvel-studios-kevin-feige-mcu-future/

https://ew.com/movies/2018/09/07/captain-marvel-samuel-l-jackson-young-nick-fury/

https://web.archive.org/web/20190608001617/https://screenrant.com/spider-man-far-home-meet-fury-endgame/

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2456051/captain-marvel-what-we-know-so-far-about-nick-furys-past

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2464339/nick-furys-infinity-war-scene-may-have-teased-the-return-of-another-marvel-character

https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/nick-fury-series-samuel-l-jackson-disney-plus-1234782313/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2020/09/28/why-marvel-should-have-let-samuel-l-jacksons-nick-fury-stay-dead/?sh=1f42400961c6

https://www.cbr.com/samuel-l-jackson-first-regular-tv-role-nick-fury-fitting/

https://web.archive.org/web/20130911011104/http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/david-hasselhoff-wants-another-shot-nick-fury-150300817.html

https://www.denofgeek.com/comics/the-original-agents-of-shield-the-story-behind-the-nick-fury-tv-movie/

https://www.tvguide.com/news/david-hasselhoff-samuel-jackson-diss-nick-fury-1069954/

http://www.mtv.com/news/2603103/david-hasselhoff-nick-fury/

https://www.eonline.com/news/455819/david-hasselhoff-backtracks-on-samuel-l-jackson-as-nick-fury-diss

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/columns/marveltv/12108-David-Hasselhoff-Is-Nick-Fury-in-the-90s-movie-Nick-Fury-Agent-o.2

https://geektyrant.com/news/2013/9/9/david-hasselhoff-stan-lee-called-me-the-ultimate-nick-fury

https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/marvels-avengers-trailer-modok-nick-fury-leader-characters-heroes-villains/#3

https://gamerant.com/marvels-avengers-gameplay-leak-nick-fury/

https://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-Nick-Fury-Ended-Up-Looking-Like-Being-Played-By-Samuel-L-Jackson-71136.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/samuel-l-jackson-thanks-mark-millar-2015-4

https://screenrant.com/nick-fury-comics-movies/

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/wire-buzz-fury-files-covenant-funimationcon

https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/01/13/between-the-panels-marvel-comics-has-a-nick-fury-problem

https://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/1133754-fury-files-disney-sets-new-marvel-series-for-may

https://ew.com/article/2012/03/02/ultimate-spider-man-nick-fury/

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a32409692/disney-plus-marvel-nick-fury-files/

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2464851/the-wild-way-samuel-l-jackson-got-the-role-of-marvels-nick-fury

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/ultimate-spider-man-recruits-nick-643461

https://bgr.com/2020/05/05/marvel-disney-plus-new-releases-fury-files-future-avengers/

https://web.archive.org/web/20181011091409/http://www.highlanderworldwide.com/2017/02/11/jim-byrnes/

https://web.archive.org/web/20181222000548/https://www.tor.com/2018/06/22/all-that-you-know-is-at-an-end-fantastic-four-rise-of-the-silver-surfer/

https://web.archive.org/web/20190329002647/https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/24/samuel-l-jackson-says-his-marvel-contract-is-almost-up

https://web.archive.org/web/20190510121204/https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/how-samuel-l-jackson-became-hollywoods-bankable-star-1174613

https://web.archive.org/web/20160808004955/http://www.newsarama.com/20999-disney-infinity-introduces-marvel-super-heroes-new-play-modes.html

I stand by my earlier statement that this feels like an attempt to start a "Nominate all In other media articles for deletion" bandwagon. A merge would only result in nearly all of the appearances listed in Nick Fury in other media being re-added to Nick Fury in paragraph form. No merge is even necessary, because this topic easily passes WP:LISTN. Dark knight 2149 07:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m truly confused at what you think you’re posting. Nobody disputes that the character has appeared in a multitude of media, but how does that show this page needs to exist? You posted many that are attributed to characters that already have their own pages as well. That also doesn’t change that there is no need to list most of the content in the article. It is simply trivial information that can easily be summarized in the main article. TTN (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give a couple examples, Goku#In other media and Naruto Uzumaki#In other media are the quickest I can find that sufficiently wrap up long history in a number of dedicated paragraphs. There's plenty of media not listed there because it doesn't matter. We're a not a comprehensive guide to each franchise. This is a general encyclopedia. Just because the comics-space has ingrained content-bloat into its style does not mean that it's actually the proper way of organizing information. I get it's a bit different due to way more unconnected adaptations, but anything that is not important to a summary paragraph is too unimportant to be in the article. TTN (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic guide to anything that has coverage by reliable sources and is notable. That can sometimes include fictional elements. We have a forey of reliable sources that heavily discuss (and are devoted primarily to) Nick Fury's appearances outside of the comics, especially (but not limited to) film and television. The current version of Nick Fury in other media is also pretty economical and avoids going into unnecessary detail, and most of the individual appearances listed are already verified by some sort of citation anyway. I'm just struggling to see a policy reason to merge. Dark knight 2149 21:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't given any sources discussing the concept of the character outside of the comics. You've given sources of adaptations outside of the comics. Those are two different things. For this list to to stand on its own, you'd need actual discussion based on the concept of the character outside of comics. Most of the sources aren't even discussing anything. It's just typical press release stuff, which is only suitable for verification purposes. This is still just a content fork of the main article, so we have to look at it from the idea of this being placed in the main article. It would be trimmed down to the essentials in that case, as with pretty much every major non-comic character I can find. TTN (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Heart ^(talk) 14:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unnecessary deletion nomination because splits are addressed by merger, not deletion. See WP:IGNORINGATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with above, stuff like this should be taken care of with merges, not AFDs.★Trekker (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @*Treker and Andrew Davidson: Given the extensive coverage of the topic, the fact that the current article doesn't go into excessive detail, and the fact that nearly all of the individual appearances in the article are already sourced, what policy-based reason is there to merge? Genuine question. It clearly passes WP:LISTN and the point above about "Wikipedia isn't Wikia and I don't think this is important to cover" isn't a very good argument. Dark knight 2149 19:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The current title is clearly written as part of a set as the phrase "other media" only makes sense in a wider context such as a navigational template. This is not ideal IMO as sources for the topic have clearer titles such as The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film and Televison. But such sources demonstrate that such framing is both notable and encyclopedic. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion and so, for purposes of this discussion, we just keep the existing page for further work per WP:ATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nick Fury per WP:ATD. The topics are the same but we should strive to WP:PRESERVE information and the edit history. Archrogue (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article is considered to be a list article of characters and restructured per WP:LISTN. If consensus is that none of the alternate versions are considered notable for inclusion in a split from the main article, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD merge them back into the main Nick Fury article. Haleth (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as mentioned by the last few commenters. There's a WP:CONTENTFORK issue. Which ties into whether the secondary sources really distinguish this from the main topic for a second separate notable topic that isn't just WP:PLOT info. But we should make an effort to bridge the gap with people who care about the WP:ATD/WP:PRESERVE argument. Strive for WP:CONSENSUS and make Wikipedia less of a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already been established that the sources distinguish this from the main topic. There are many sources that are only devoted to Fury's appearances in other media. The closer should take note that nobody has given a strong argument for a merger, per WP:NOTAVOTE. Dark knight 2149 06:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears well-referenced and supported. Since it also seems somewhat of a hybrid of a well-annotated list, it is really well wiki-linked, leading me to be able to read other related articles on the encyclopedia.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Carlström

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

dubious blp about a "whistleblower" who hasn't received any major coverage - everything are press releases, sponsored posts in dubious, paid for black hat and sniped sites. (not to be confused with Victor Carlstrom who is notable) Praxidicae (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to deleting admin: User:Swan1111 has been indeffed for WP:NPA, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bludgeoning and personal attacks by Swan1111 —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly a nice change of pace to see self-promoters give themselves a fun backstory, but this article appears to be a complete fabrication. Does not have a single mention in Swedish newspapers. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, right — couldn't get a single respectable media outlet to pick up the story, but not to worry, let's write a Wikipedia article instead! (Unsurprisingly, by a WP:SPA with clear WP:COI issues.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Carlström is defenitly notable, he has media coverage in all leading U.S and UK news outlets, see here link https://www.victorcarlstrom.com/pressandmedia/ over 10 articles in tier 2 independent newsoutlets last 3 months. Swedish media supress the story since Victor Carlström are in court against Sweden, and their largest banks since December 2019 over 4.2 billion USD. Victor Carlströms courtcase is one of the largest court cases in United States this year, see link https://www.poandpo.com/news/swedish-government-drafts-team-of-international-law-firms-to-defend-42bn-corruption-lawsuit/ Victor Carlströms defendants try to supress all coverage visible in Sweden including delete this Wikiepdia page as a part of their suppresion process. The person moved this page for deletion is Swedish and Turkish and not independent to Victor Carlström since people Victor Carlström sue in court are Swedish and Turkish. This is not a coincidence, this is a coordinate attack to supress Victor Carlström. Very obvious the whole delete process is a supress attack from the people Victor Carlström are in court against, just look at all the media coverage this year in the link, over 30 independent articles total only this year (Not including press release). You all destroy creditbility of Wikiepdia when you supress major international news like this. See link with all articles as proof https://www.victorcarlstrom.com/pressandmedia/ shame on you by try to delete Victor Carlströms page with false accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swan1111 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now gone over almost 30 independent news articles about Victor Carlström only this year in U.K, US, and other European News outlets (No press releases), most of them are tier 2 new outlets and reporters claim sources from court documents and lawyers from both sides. Also, see his website www.victorcarlstrom.com where over 300 pages of court documents are available. These documents describe money laundering and other financial fraud in detail. So don't really understand whats your point is by try to delete this Wikipedia page, since every single word in Victor Carlströms Wikipedia page is correct. Do you claim the case does not exist, and all these massive lawyer firms work with a fantasy case and the court in Southern District Of New York don't have the case? Your allegations are very diffuse. It is very obvious this is a coordinated attack to suppress Victor Carlström, only because this Wikipedia page is visible in Sweden. If you look at the date and time you all write for deletion it is impossible you have had time to read about the case, so it's very obvious this is a coordinated suppression attack where someone most likely pays you to have Victor Carlströms Wikipedia page deleted. I have sent this case to as many administrators as I could find to have them stop this suppression attack. Paid attacks like these destroy credibility for all Wikipedia and for all usernames working honestly and say no to do things for money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swan1111 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here I have summery 9 tier 2 new outlets in US and U.K about Victor Carlström last 3 months, all from independent sources and NO press releases. Then one appearance in National US television NBC Show Crime Tuesday and National US radio show Overnight America. The only Swedish person with more media coverage in the U.S and U.K last 3 months is Zlatan Ibrahimovic then Victor Carlström is number two. Victor Carlström also has a Google Panel for a notable person. As I said your coordinated suppression attack to delete Victor Carlström Wikipedia page will not work since I informed many Wikipedia administrators looking into this attack right now.

Here is top 9 tier 2 news stories about Victor Carlström last 3 months also I link one US national TV appearance and one US national Radio appearance last months there is much more.

http://www.enstarz.com/articles/216753/20201022/is-victor-x-swedens-edward-snowden.htm

https://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/swedish-authorities-increase-intimidation-of-whistleblower-victor-x/

https://nationeditions.com/royal-flush-whistleblower-loses-it-all/

https://thebuzzpaper.com/victor-carlstrom-social-circles-to-isolation/amp/

https://www.hometownstation.com/news-articles/lapd-step-in-to-protect-whistleblower-victor-x-344970

https://celebmix.com/documentary-on-celebrity-whistleblower-victor-x-in-the-works/

https://luxurylaunches.com/other_stuff/socialite-speaks-up-then-trouble-follows-victor-carlstrom-now-known-as-victor-x.php

https://ventsmagazine.com/2020/08/13/victor-carlstrom-documentary-rumored-to-be-in-pre-production/

https://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/business/victor-carlstrom-from-a-list-to-asylum-seeker/

This one is National Tv in the US at NBC for millions of viewers

https://www.lx.com/news/true-crime-tuesday-on-the-run/19127/

This one is National Radio in the US

https://omny.fm/shows/overnight-america/victor-carlstrom#description

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swan1111 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have double-checked and Victor Carlström meets all guidelines for "(WP:GNG|our notability guidelines". I'm very against suppression, and this attack was showing the worse sides of suppression. If you took 5 minutes and Google Victor Carlström this deletion discussion would never have happened from the beginning. — Swan1111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Still a delete from me, there are about three sources there that are not black-hat SEO sites, one podcast, and then about two that would be usable as WP:RS, one of those is a press release and the other a small interview on a self-described "Gen-Z oriented local news streaming network" (which does not have a million viewers). No independent coverage to be found. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like this subject has been at AfD before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Carlstrom (businessman). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found 12 sources and 6 independent media coverage. Don't found any pod, only National TV NBC LX and 25 minutes appearance in the radio show Overnight America. Plus Google panel for a notable person. Plus 300 court documents with singed perjury document. Victor Carlström meets all guidelines for "(WP:GNG|our notability guidelines" Username Pjarkur is a part of the coorinated suppression attack, very obvious. User Liz→ The former Wikipedia which was deleted was in May since then you have 26 independent news articles where 22 are in tier 2 news outlets so you can't compare then and now. it's a completely new case now, the only similarity is same people behind the suppression attack in May and now. People linked to defendant Sweden and Turkey, both countries block almost all media coverage about the case. U.S and U.K have regular media coverage about the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swan1111 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just find media coverage with Victor Carlström in international tier 1 news outlets, such as Fortune, Reuters, U.S News and World Report, and International Business Times, this is some of the world's most respected news outlets. This proof only Zlatan Ibrahimovic is the only Swedish person with more international media coverage this year. Since only Zlatan and Victor Carlström are the only Swedish people published in international tier 1 news outlets. No other Swedish people exist in international tier 1 news outlets this year. This defenitly make VIctor Carlström to meet all guidelines for "(WP:GNG|our notability guidelines."

https://money.usnews.com/financial-advisors/articles/advising-clients-on-using-a-backdoor-roth-ira

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia-markets-valuations/asian-stock-valuations-drop-to-15-month-low-in-march-refinitiv-data-idUSKBN21K0WC?il=0

https://fortune.com/2020/02/24/coronavirus-fears-stock-market-drop/

https://www.ibtimes.com/us-economy-verge-recession-fate-could-depend-government-response-coronavirus-experts-2936776

https://fortune.com/2020/02/25/coronavirus-cdc-stock-market-dow-s-p-500/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swan1111 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Collapsing rambling and blatant personal attacks. Blablubbs|talk 14:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have triple checked and no evidence found for black hat SEO from Victor Carlström. That is a false claim by Praxidicae in his paid suppression attack against Victor Carlström. The only black hat SEO is used by Sweden in their effort to hide published articles from Swedish readers. Again I believe this is the Wikipedia page with the most references consider the very short Wikipedia page, 35 references for 13 sentence text most definitely a record so far. Also, I'm up in 14 different sources now in media coverage in tier 1,2 and 3 news outlets. And Victor Carlström defenitly meets all critera in "WP:GNG| notability guidelines"

The ongoing paid suppression attack against whistleblower Victor Carlström is a strike against the credibility of the whole Wikipedia. Victor Carlström Wikipedia page I believe is the Wikipedia page with the most reference consider the very short Wikipedia page, 35 different tier 1, 2, and 3 news outlets for a couple of sentences and still, they try to delete it. Action is taken against these usernames to have them deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swan1111 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a unwarranted claim it is fact. Editors please take action and block Praxidicae for double-dipping by taking money from someone to suppress whistleblower VIctor Carlström. Extremely obvious if you look at facts and it destroys credibility for the whole Wikipedia, these usernames must be blocked. Swan1111 (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thjarkur, DoubleGrazing and Praxidicae you try to suppress and have me blocked now? Because your paid suppression attack our on the way to fail and you will not receive the final payment if Victor Carlströms Wikipedia is not deleted? I working hard to have you blocked for this paid suppression attack just so you know.

'Soon Victor Carlströms Wikipedia page will have one reference on each word if this continues. 'Now it's 35 references for 12 sentences'''' it's the worse example I ever have seen. And Wikipedia would not exist if this scrutiny was applied to other Wikipedia pages, that's why I claim you destroy the credibility of the whole Wikipedia and you must be blocked.Swan1111 (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New information Victor Carlström case is one of the most discussed topics at the Swedish largest forum Flashback with over 2 million members. Flashback has it server outside Sweden after Sweden tried to suppress flashback by close down the first version years ago that was located in Sweden.

See link https://www.flashback.org/t3258994 In over 240 answers and approximately 40 000 page views people have discussed Victor Carlström case and the Swedens suppression of the case. Swan1111 (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought this looked familiar even though the name did not ring any bells (I am pretty clueless when it comes to celebrities in Sweden, so me not recognising the name is not a point against notability in itself), but then I realised that I did a pretty thorough search back in June when we had the previous AfD. (Yes, I had forgotten the name since then.) He was clearly not notable then as all the press coverage was churnalism, primary sources, or trivial mentions, and looking through the sources published since, there isn't a shred of notability there: again, it is primary, based on press releases, promotional, and/or trivial. Not one single mention in DN, or even in Expressen which is a pretty useless source, but it does tend to pick up the gossip. "Famous on Flashback" is one of the more amusing claims to notability I've heard! --bonadea contributions talk 15:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely self-promotional sources. Not one single source presented comes even within shouting distance of being a WP:RS. Given the re-creation, the extreme tenor of the claims, and the disruption in this AfD, I also suggest Salting. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I consider these page meet all criteria for WP:GNG. I will clarify. "Significant coverage" Check, person, exist in Fortune, Reuters, US News & World Report, International Business Times, The European Financial Review, Business Matters, Nation Editions, The Buzz Paper, Luxury Launches, Talk Business, US television NBC LX and Radio show Overnight America and many more, none of these are press releases and no connection to Carlström.

"Reliable" Check, many independent articles in The European Financial Review and Business Matters two very reliable news sources. Also, coverage in Nation Editions is reliable. Then as a financial expert in Fortune, Reuters, US News & World Report, and International Bussines Times all very reliable news sources.

~~"Independent of the subject" Check, Can't see any connection with the once I just mention to Carlström. We can't assume we need facts.~~

~~Note: WP:GNG does not require specific names of media coverage or a specific number of sources. Also, understandable Swedish media cover up the story if you look at the sensitivity of the case.~~

Finally, Calrström is the first person from North Europe with asylum in United States, and if you look at the magnitude of his lawsuit and the consequences of the potential outcome of the lawsuit, together with all media coverage and different blogs, forums, for me it's no question he meets all criteria for WP:GNG. I understand his case is controversial and challenges the narrative for many people but we need to look at the facts, and put the personal opinion aside. Also, I think some goes to hard with assumptions, in this case, no name mention.Raiderstorm (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solution' To move forward and save the page, I suggest shorter the page and only mention his lawsuit, asylum in the United States, and his investment firm Vinacossa Enterprises. Then it's backed up by multiply media coverage and sources to meet all criteria in WP:GNG. Also, person exists on a regular basis in different media coverage and is a hot topic on the web so delete the page is not considered correct. And please for all well-being save the assumptions and present facts if you have claims, thanks.Raiderstorm (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comments by confirmed sockpuppet, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Swan1111. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax Fences&Windows 17:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

House of Heyngarten

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

Hoax? In any case not notable. The lead image was made yesterday, the coat of arms is for "Amhengart" (which doesn't seem to be a notable or actual noble family), the name "Heyngarten" is virtually unknown, sources are for people with names vaguely resembling Heyngarten, Huenergardt, ... The "current head of the house", Archie Huenergardt, is not notable, even assuming that the person with that name is actually related to the others here. Fram (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this seems to be an attempt to create this hoax a second time, 11 years after the first one was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Huenergardt. If they are sufficiently identical, this can be speedy deleted as a G4. Fram (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a Hoax but continuing information added about discovering genealogy if you actually read the sources listed in the article, this same information was on a different Wiki page but moved because it was not related to Seventh Day Adventists but was in fact the same family of J.F. Huenergardt. Just because there is nothing on the internet doesn't mean the information is a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huengaud (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you adding this "house" to the same level of Royalty as the Hohenzollern and the Romanovs makes me doubt that claim[22]. Fram (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indistinguishable from a hoax, unverifiable. The "painting" shown has been generated by the DeepArt.io painting filter, strongly indicating a hoax. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: I speedy deleted the article as a cut-and-paste move from Draft:House of Huenergardt, per WP:G6. That was contested so I have restored the article, and merged the draft into it. Anyone with the technical capability can overwrite my draftspace redirect if the result of this discussion requires it, or if you can't for some reason ping me and I'll take care of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't say for sure if this is a blatant hoax or just a non-notable family (Þjarkur's observation strongly suggests the former) but deletion is prescribed either way. I went through a few of the sources and can't add anything to Fram's review; at least one is written by a member of the family. I did the usual search under both "Heyngarten" and "Huenergardt", and in both cases (disregarding Wikipedia mirrors) a number of individuals came up but no evidence that any share a common lineage, nor that the family name itself is notable in any way. While this might be a person's valid research project into their own genealogy, Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com, we don't publish original research. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Almost certainly a hoax, and otherwise pure WP:OR. This 'house' is no more real than the House of Hofferrschloffen. Nsk92 (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:SNOW, and WP:SALT. This stinks in every possible way of a hoax, not just by the ways already mentioned but by the fact that of this supposedly-significant noble house has not one member of it as a bluelink - the odds of this many people of a major, or even middling, house not having a single existing article is next to nil...and the fact that the one that is bluelinked, the Bishop of Sion from 1522-1529, was not the person the article claims it to be - the article says "Philip von Heyngarten (Hennegarten)" was the Prince-Bishop of Sion in that period...but if you click on the link, you learn the Prince-Bishop in that time was either Philippe am Hengart or Philippe de Platea depending on who was doing the recognizing - no Heyngarten, no Hennegarten. This is something that was blatantly made up one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTGENEALOGY and completely unconvincing sources. —Kusma (t·c) 22:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The image of "Velten and Hans" is actually from a book of traditional folk costumes by Albert Kretschmer, Here's the original image. Two of the coats of arms appear to have literally been made in MS Paint [23] [24]. The editor uploaded a slightly less digitally manipulated version of the "painting" here which looks like it's been through an anaglyph filter and had a hat photoshopped on. Combined with the members of this house not appearing in historical records where they should as noted by other editors above I can only come to the conclusion that this is a hoax. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ru:Стефан (Stephan, alleged birthplace of Margaret Brauer) is a very common personal name, but Russian WP does not list any places with that name. There is no place in Russian WP called either ru:Черваковка or ru:Церваковка (Cservakovka, alleged birthplace of Sophia Darlinger). "Konrad was the son of Johan Adam Huhnergarth (1771-abt. 1851) and Anna Groh of Russia, a Musketeer involved in the Seven Years' War"; a precocious feat, as the Seven Years' War took place 1756-1763. "Pastor Johann Hindergarten circa (1580-1660) [...] most likely migrated to Hesse area from Saxony due to the Protestant reformation" is difficult to explain, because both the Landgraviate of Hesse and Electoral Saxony had been Protestant since the 1520s; see List of states by the date of adoption of the Reformation. However, the Landgrave of Hesse converted from Lutheranism to Calvinism in 1604 (see Calvinism in Germany), and that could provide an explanation; although it is not supported by the second sentence of the article, "The House of Huenergardt were mainly Protestant Lutheran." As for the places in Hesse - de:Helpershain is now part of Ulrichstein; Allendorff auf dem Lumme ("on the Lumme") is difficult to locate, because there is no geographical feature called de:Lumme, and Allendorf(f) could easily be a typo for Altendorf; Alsfeld exists; Buedigen could be a typo for Buedingen, also in Hesse; de:Bobenhausen II is now part of Ulrichstein; and de:Stumpertenrod exists. Hin der Garten should be hin dem Garten (more properly dem Garten hin, but tinkering with the wording is not uncommon in canting arms). The mantling on the coat of arms is impressive and Germanic, but the escutcheon just looks unstylish and wrong. The loss of the noble particle von from the name at an undetermined date is unusual; it was eagerly striven after, inherited, and jealously preserved. Although the places in Hesse add an "air of verisimilitude" to the narrative, this evidence combined with that presented above by other editors leads me to conclude that this article is at best a misreading of sources, most likely originating off-wiki. Narky Blert (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert, the places on the Volga exist. Cservakovka is ru:Щербатовка (Волгоградская область). Stephan is Штефан or ru:Воднобуерачное. See File:Volga German area.gif. See also this self-published source of the previous article. —Kusma (t·c) 10:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Volga German makes sense. Narky Blert (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that, a long time ago, we had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Huenergardt which was closed as delete.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArchCity Defenders

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

501c3 local social justice oriented law firm. Local nature does not pass WP:NONPROFIT. Does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH, NCORP. The coverage in NYT just says that they filed a lawsuit but does not get in depth about the organization. Graywalls (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wanted to vote keep when I saw all the good references but, the problem is that it is all local and so it misses WP:NGO "can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." Jeepday (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mos'aab Al Kandari

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. PROD nom removed on the basis of his AFC Cup and AFC Champions League appearances. BlameRuiner (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Not a professional footballer. Simione001 (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He was the starting goalkeeper for Al Kuwait in the 2009 AFC Cup Final, the 2012 AFC Cup Final, and the 2013 AFC Cup Final, which Al-Kuwait all won, and there should be articles covering him significantly as a result. Typing his name in Arabic brings up a number of sources, but I can't figure out if they're significant. SportingFlyer T·C 15:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 12:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - He does get some decent coverage in a quick search of his Arabic name [25] [26] [27] [28] but falls short on WP:GNG Spiderone 21:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which appears to fail WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramak Safi

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

Does not qualifies WP:GNG WP:NSOCCER Serv181920 (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG - he might scrape by on NFOOTBALL but insufficient sourcing to verify claims. Giant Snowman 18:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources exist [29] [30] but fall short of WP:SIGCOV Spiderone 18:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impax Asset Management Group

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

~~does not meet current standards of notability -- see WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)~~ DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article seems to be reasonably well-written. The company seems to be notable in that it manages a number of large listed entities. Dormskirk (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

neither of these factors have anything to do with notability in Wikipedia DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough (and I know decisions here seem to be made on the basis of the narrow criteria in WP:NCORP) but in "real world importance" the company has been described by the Financial Times journalist and author, Alice Ross, as one of just three fund managers identified that has "consistently focussed on the environment". Dormskirk (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a criteria either. scope_creep^Talk 10:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, even if "real world importance" is of no importance (but see WP:IAR), it does have coverage in the Financial Times, Investors Chronicle, Financial News and Investment Week, amongst others. Dormskirk (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep updates by Dormskirk seem to indicate that the subject of the article meets WP:ORGCRIT 'is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.' Jeepday (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - asset managers and funds are not inherently notable. It would have to have Hundreds of Billions in assets to be notable. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment ::I notice that on SarahSV's talk page, Dormskirk (talk · contribs) makes the argument "My direction of travel remains that the efforts of companies that do really good things for the environment should be recognised." My own view is that this is the very opposite of WP:NPOV, destructive of the purpose of an encyclopedia, turning it into a publication like Charity Navigator. Advocacy can be an excellent thing—elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment ::I do understand and respect the point that DGG is making here - it is a very good one. I also strongly suspect that this article started life as one which was initiated by an editor with a conflict of interest. That said, I still think it would probably be a mistake to delete the article. Dormskirk (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noted above, the company is not any more inherently notable than any other asset management company. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability as they rely on company announcement and interviews, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Costello, Miles (2019-11-19). "Impax Environmental Markets: A sustainable way to make money". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-12-14. Retrieved 2020-12-14.
  The article notes:
  
  Among the oldest of these is Impax Environmental Markets, an investment trust that has been going since 2002. It was set up and is managed by Impax Asset Management, a firm founded in 1998 with backing from the International Finance Corporation, part of the World Bank.
  ...
  Yet while Impax Asset Management is wedded to some lofty principles, it is also very serious about the business of making money. It has begun to cast its net far beyond the conventional remits of renewable energy and recycled waste into areas such as sustainable food and fashion and the use of technology to reduce waste and the use of raw materials across industrial sectors. With sustainability at its core, this is pretty pioneering stuff.
2. Newman, Alex (2019-12-06). "Investors Chronicle: Impax Asset Management, Reach, Ted Baker". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-12-14. Retrieved 2020-12-14.
  The article notes: "It is abundantly clear that Impax’s sustainable investing mandates are both in demand and delivering for clients, writes Alex Newman. The past year has been marked by “unprecedented concern globally about environmental issues and rapidly expanding opportunities”, in the words of Impax Asset Management’s chairman Keith Falconer. It is hard to contest that view. Equally, it is hard to think of a UK-listed financial services group better placed to capitalise on this momentous, even exponential, shift."
3. Rice, Nick (2010-04-19). "Investment Adviser: In the spotlight: Impax Asset Management". Investment Adviser. Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-12-14. Retrieved 2020-12-14.
  The article notes: "Investors might worry about Impax's relatively small size and lack of diversity, but Mr Simm points out larger institutions have also taken a stake. BNP Paribas Investment Partners holds 28 per cent of the company, Rathbones has 7 per cent through its in-house portfolios, and Diam Asset Management holds 5 per cent. ... Investors must judge Impax's investment case on the basis of current valuations, and whether they believe the environment is one of the key themes of the future."
4. Stankovska, Simona (2011-09-26). "Investment Adviser: Company profile: Impax Asset Management". Investment Adviser. Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-12-14. Retrieved 2020-12-14.
  The article notes: "Established in October 1998 by chief executive Ian Simmchief executive Ian Simm, the company only invests in environmentally focused equities such as renewable energy, water and waste management. ... In spite of turbulent economic conditions, Impax's largest fund, the GBP204.1m Impax Environmental Markets, a Dublin-domiciled global equities product launched in February 2002, has managed to outperform its sector, Offshore Equity Ethical, by 1.79 percentage points in the year to September 15."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Impax Asset Management Group to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That Impax Asset Management Group has been profiled in the Financial Times and The Times strongly establishes it is notable. That the sources include quotes from people affiliated with the company (it is good journalistic practice for reporters to speak to the subjects of their articles) does not make the articles non-independent as there is independent analysis and reporting from the journalists.
Cunard (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, what is your view about the sources cited above? Sandstein 08:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Kolma8 (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cunard, are you willing to rewrite the article? DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the version of the article when you nominated it for deletion. Dormskirk (talk · contribs) has done an excellent job rewriting and substantially expanding the article since it was nominated. The article is neutrally written and balanced. It includes critical commentary about Impax: "The company was criticised again, this time by the Investment Association, over executive pay in December 2018." And "After 23.7% of shareholders voted against the re-appointment of EY as the company's auditor in May 2018,[9] the company was criticised by the Investment Association, over an apparent lack of independence of EY as its auditor, in December 2018."
It would be inadvisable for me to rewrite an article that another neutral established editor has already done a great job rewriting.
Cunard (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will defer to Cunard on this in the first instance but I would be content to work some of this material into the article if Cunard does not have time - particularly the material from Miles Costello of The Times which refers to "pretty pioneering stuff" and the material from Alex Newman of the Financial Times which refers to the company's ability to capitalise on "this momentous, even exponential, shift". Some of the language may need to be toned down a bit. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dormskirk. Thank you for pointing out the sources' commentary about Impax which strongly establishes notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage noting that, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization". Thank you for your great work on the article. Please continue your excellent work on improving the article. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cunard - Very many thanks for your kind comments, which have restored some of my faith in wikipedia. This is not the first time that I have come here to try and improve an article which I thought was worthy of improvement but whenever I have done so in the past my efforts, which were always in good faith, have been either condemned or otherwise criticised. You are a credit to the project. Thank you and best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disappointed to hear that some editors fail to value your excellent work. They should encourage you to keep doing the great work you've been doing instead of condemning or criticising your work. I have encountered this frequently in my past work at AfD too, so I really relate to your experience. Cunard (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the improvements made, though I think it can be tightened a little , and I may do it. I can't withdraw the AfD as someone else has !voted delete, but I think it can be closed. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Dormskirk (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for withdrawing the AfD. Cunard (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while the article has been expanded recently, a lot of it is {particularly the History section) is opinioned trivia or puffery; what this journalist thought, what that person noted, what that employee did outside of the organisation etc, and not a lot of stating what it does and how it is notable. Asset managers can have a large net work due to the value of the assets under management, but aside from periodically buying and selling assets, they don't do much, hence are rarely notable enough for an article. Busztrax (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. The article can be moved back to go through the AfC process once notability can be demonstrated. – bradv🍁 01:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hero – Gayab Mode On

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

Planned television series that does not satisfy television notability. The rules that are described in more detail for unreleased films should also apply to future television series. They are normally not notable before being broadcast, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Google search shows that the TV show will be broadcast in a few months. We knew that.

This article has now been created in article space, moved to draft space as not yet notable, and created in article space again. It is still not yet notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The draft can be kept, and can be resubmitted when the series is broadcast. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and creation salt per nom. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:Zppix - You said to Draftify. The article is already in both article space and draft space. Does that mean to delete the copy in article space and leave the draft alone? (I would have draftified it, except that it is already in draft space, possibly to try to prevent draftification.) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say histmerge if needed but delete the article space one for sure. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 12:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and re-publish when the series goes to air. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, To the people who are suggesting to draftify, it's already mentioned by the nom that a Draft is already exists. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the existing draft and publish only after the series goes on-air. Sunshine1191 (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.18.24 (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Smith (swimmer)

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

Perhaps worthy of mention somewhere, but not sufficiently notable for this achievement to require an article. Would once have taken a spot at List_of_successful_English_Channel_swimmers#Oldest_swimmer. Lacks good sources. William Avery (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. William Avery (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being the oldest person to do something, let alone the oldest x citizen to do something, is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. And this part: "Married to Marlene, his biggest fan! Now lives in Deal, Kent and still swims daily." I thought we are Wikipedia, not Gossip Magazine. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BASIC, at best this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT Spiderone 22:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Femforce. Missvain (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Fremont

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

Bottom-of-the barrer fancruft - four paragaphs, no references, all pure plot summary. I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." but as usual it was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with the no meaningful rationale despite my request for one. Perhaps speedy votes would be appropriate here? Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Femforce as an WP:ATD. Does not appear independently notable in the slightest._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Femforce per Zxcvbnm. Article does not meet the WP:GNG but might be a valid search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - Topic fails to meet WP:GNG. There is no significant real world information on the character. TTN (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Femforce as it could be a useful search term for anyone looking for info on the character/comic. Aoba47 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Femforce would be the wisest solution.TH1980 (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Femforce#Team members, since it is included in the team member list. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no justification for this as a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Iaschelcic

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

pure PR, without a single source that is really reliable enough for BLP DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely not notable as a martial artist. Has never appeared in the WKF world rankings (which list hundreds in each division) and is not listed among the nearly 50,000 taekwondo fighters listed at taekwondodata.com. I'm less familiar with the notability criteria for models, though at first glance the coverage doesn't seem overwhelmingly convincing that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking more carefully, I believe she fails WP:ENTERTAINER so she is not notable as a model. I also don't believe the article's sources rise to the level and "significant and independent coverage" in multiple "reliable sources". Papaursa (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a model. her beauty titles are no where near anything remotely notable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that the sourcing is insufficient for a BLP Spiderone 20:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Economics

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

~~Not specifically notable , and I think not NPOV, considering the references and the content of the reviews DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think every book gets a Wall Street Journal video[31]. NPOV requires cleanup, not deletion. Other sources are less extremely obvious, but being included in lists like this one from Traders Magazine is a clear indication of notability (assuming this isn't some paid advert thing, but it doesn't look like it). A column in Forbes may not be a RS, but still, most people and books don't get this kind of recognition[32]. And then there are the regular sources, like this review in the Jackson Sun. It is called a "classic book" by the UK Spectator, which publishes an excerpt[33]. It is called a "much-lauded" book by Reason. Review in FEE and in Kirkus. Other reviews by RRPA and a very lengthy one in Cato. Interview about the book with the Hoover Institution. Fram (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's his most notable, most famous book! It's had 5 editions! just because the article had only just been created doesn't call for it's deletion. the article specifically includes a criticism section too so I don't think it can be called a violation of NPOV. If and article was going to be written on a book by thomas sowell, this one should be. As can be seen in an archived talk page discussion, people have questioned why this wasn't done sooner. This article is just a beginning, I created it only a few days ago. It really should stay. Both claims: violation of NPOV and not notable are asserted without justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gd123lbp (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as met WP:NBOOK at the time of nomination with multiple reviews; I added another. The criteria: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." I made a few edits to the article; it needed a more encyclopedic tone but didn't suffer from NPOV issues and it wasn't in bad shape. One of the weirder nominations I've seen in some time. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep proves it is notable. Heart ^(talk) 14:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support everyone! Please help me improve the page wjth some of those great references! Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gd123lbp (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in having multiple reviews, passes WP:NBOOK.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment I know it technically passes NBOOK as written--so does every published textbook, for they all get reviewed--and Kirkus will review essentially anything. The question is the total failure of NPOV, which is a much more basic principle that the guideline on notability. --is this a textbook on economics, or a textbook on free market economics? What do the reviews actually say in that respect? Is there any actual information here that can't be justified by a line in his article? And if it's his most famous book, what justifies the articles on his other books.? (but at least those articles at least give a hint in describing the contents that the book is from a particular perspective. I think the term for this entire group of article is WP:Walled garden. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You say half of the nomination statement does not apply here. O... Kay then... Well, you are welcome to contribute additional direct quotes by clicking the links to the reviews and adding. You are also welcome to rewrite the parts you don't believe are neutral or explain what kind of lens the author has regarding these issues... clean it up if you believe it needs cleaning up; nominate the other articles if you like. All of that is neither here nor there in a deletion discussion. Nominating a book that for notability when you know it "technically passes NBOOK" (and no, most textbooks do not, and Kirkus's paid reviewers cannot review "essentially anything"--far from it and they aren't Amazon)-- What on earth is going on?? Just... I don't know... maybe do the work? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 99% of the textbooks don't get the reviews this one gets. Yes, they may get a Kirkus review, perhaps, but not the other ones. As for NPOV, that's not a reason to delete this, that's a reason for cleanup. Remove all offending material, keep the neutral stuff. But perhaps first explain, with some examples, what makes this such a terrible NPOV violation that it warrants not pruning, not rewriting, but annihilation? Because I don't see it, and no one else seems too bothered by it either.
- "All textbooks get reviewed", but most don't get a 7-page long review in Cato Journal, do they? Foundation for Economic Education or Reason (magazine) are reliable sources (yes, they have a certain slant, but a book that only gets reviewed in e.g. left-wing or right-wing sources is still a notable book, and the POV of the book or the sources wouldn't be a reason to delete the article). The Spectator doesn't publish excerpts of just any textbook either. I don't get your insistence that this article should be deleted or only technically passes NBOOK: what more would you expect? Fram (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somehow I thought you are a librarian, User:DGG, how could you propose this for deletion? It clearly passes WP:NBOOK, neutrality problems are no reason for deleting stuff, I don't see issues warranting a WP:TNT approach here. Anyway, I have added more academic reviews.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing this as hopeless. Back to 2006 I guess ,when WP was a playground for this sort of advocacy. Or if it's gotten better, I hope someone will fix the NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it is non-neutral, why haven't you tagged it with {{npov}} and started a talk page discussion? This is the way to deal with that issue, not an AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

` DGG I don't really understand your claim that this is advocacy? what cause is it advocating? Could you be more specific in the claim that there is a breach of NPOV? Which parts are not neutral? The article follows sources and is written in a factual manner. There is also criticism included on it.

Keep and rewrite. I see the concerns about WP:NPOV but it seems to be something that could be fixed with some clean-up without deleting the entire article. Archrogue (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It ignores the fact the author is devoted to advocacy of a particular economic position. This would be critical to the judgement of the book, and confirmed by the Cato review. One of the aspects of promotionalism is hiding what some people might consider evidence of a very specific politico-economic orientation, DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, your view is that this article "ignores" a subject that should be in it (namely, Sowells politico-economic orientation) and thus that is evidence of breaching of WP:NPOV. The absence of something is not evidence for something, it is simply an absence. It is written at the top of Sowell's biography page that "he writes from a conservative-libertarian perspective" - how hard would it be to add that in, if you insist on that - I personally think it would be rather repetitive to have it written here as well. Also, this wikipedia article doesnt advocate this point of view either, it simply states the facts about what subjects the book deals with. I would much prefer a simple stating of the facts about the book, rather than turn this into a debate page over whether people agree or disagree with his political orientation. If you think this article is advocating his political-economic persuasion, be specific - tell us which sentences you think do this and we can correct them together. (an argument for editing rather than deletion)

At this point we've had two claims that are pushing the case for deletion 1: "not notable" - that has been thoroughly disproved, and 2: "violates NPOV" - that can be remedied very easily with minor edits (assuming its a problem at all, which I dont think it is). DGG please join in the talk page discussion, I am keen to improve this article with you, rather than cast it into oblivion due to the rather vague accusation of NPOV. Gd123lbp (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

have you not noticed that I'vewithdrawn the AfD. ?? DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case DGG you shouldnt have posted your last comment which seemed aimed at continuing this debate, also, the notice appears to still be on the article page. I am waiting to see that withdrawn. Gd123lbp (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I leave that to the person who makes the formal close. It's always good to let an uninvolved person do that. (Especially when I make clear in my statement I'm withdrawing it because it won't succeed, not that I've changed my own opinion of this and related articles) DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming, Pennsylvania (disambiguation)

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

Only one matching entry and one near-match, which is already hatnoted. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, surprised as I am to learn of even one Wyoming in Pennsylvania, but there really is only the one. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This doesn't provide effective disambiguation. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A WP:2DABS page is not required here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves no valid purpose Spiderone 22:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai. I see that this has already been done. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priargunsky mine

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

After running WP:BEFORE searches, I have been unable to locate significant coverage of this mine and it seems to fit WP:MILL pretty squarely as it's just a mine in Russia. Because this mine does not appear to be notable, I am nominating it for deletion. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, it's not "just a mine in Russia" and, in any case, WP:MILL is an essay not a policy or guideline and so has "no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". There are many sources which discuss the place in detail and these make it clear that it's a major source of this strategic mineral, being the biggest in Russia and in the world's top 5. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, can you please share those "many sources" with us or add them to the article? I searched and didn't find any sources that would demonstrate significant coverage such that this article could meet WP:GNG or fit any of the criteria in WP:NGEO. I also did some searching and found nothing to support your claims that this mine is "in the world's top 5" or even an unusually large mine in Russia. I stand by my nomination.DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The exact ranking may vary from year to year and at some point the mine will be worked out. But, for example, this source has it as #4 in the world in 2006. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing that. I see that the source says that it was, at least in 2006, the 4th highest producing uranium mine in the world. That seems like a pretty non-notable distinction to me. In other words, are all mines that are in the top X for a particular mineral or ore notable? I wouldn't be in favor of that and I don't think the fact that a mine was the 4th largest uranium mine nearly 15 years ago, by itself, demonstrates notability. I think we should continue to look to WP:GNG which requires significant coverage of a subject and, at least at this point, I still haven't seen evidence that that standard is met. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to find evidence of notability such as this paper on the mine's first 25 years. As the nomination is counterfactual and not supported by policy, my !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if it is "easy to find evidence of notability," please add that evidence to the page so we can resolve this discussion. The article you linked above is (a) one of only two references I found in my BEFORE search, (b) isn't even the actual paper itself, just a one paragraph abstract as far as I can tell, and (c) hardly qualifies as significant coverage (i.e., a one-off report by a regulatory body regarding a subject's existence for X years is clearly not "significant coverage"). You keep responding that there are "many sources" and that they are "easy" to find. And I'm taking you at your word on that because I'm a strong believer in assuming good faith, so if that's the case for you (it wasn't for me), then please simply improve the article by adding them so we can close this debate. I will gladly withdraw this AFD if the article is improved such that significant coverage is shown as I like having more content in Wikipedia so long as its appropriate! Thank you. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided specific links to multiple sources while the nominator has provided zero evidence; just empty assertions. My !vote stands per WP:SHRUBBERY. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think further discussion between the two of us is going to be productive but thank you for weighing in. I'd just like to clearly state for anyone else considering this AFD that these "multiple sources" being referred to here are only (1) a single reference in a table stating that, in 2006, the mine was a large uranium mine and (2) an abstract of a regulatory report acknowledging that the mine has existed for 25 years. My point, throughout this process, has been that there is not significant coverage demonstrating notability and, if anything, this process has only made that conclusion clearer IMHO. DocFreeman24 (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing WP:MILL as just an essay means only that you, Andrew, apparently disagree with it. If I am mistaken, and you do agree with it, then it doesn't matter that it has no official status because (a) WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and (b) you would personally advance the same argument. But in the other case, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY still applies in the inverse: the argument it makes isn't magically wrong due to its lack of official endorsement. Personally, I find the essay entirely consistent as an explanation of one element of the GNG. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MILL's status as an unofficial essay is a plain fact. And, in any case, it is not appropriate to this subject because the place in question is exceptional. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have left a message on the mining project talkpage about this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That project seems to be quite dead -- about the only postings there this year are Coolabahapple's appeals. It seems that we have many inspectors but no miners. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai, leaving redirect; it's a small stub which can easily be incorporated in a section. I don't think that the subject is unnotable (I wouldn't oppose recreation with further content), just that the current article is short even for a stub, and does not therefore merit it's own article. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC) P.S. WP:WikiProject Mining isn't quite dead; it has notified at least me of this discussion.[reply]
Delete or at least merge/redirect, the article doesn't establish notability. The original author has a long history of creating articles about mines that either:
1. Are not not sourced to anything reliable
2. Has sources which don't reference the subject at all
3. Claim to be one of the "largest mines in the country, and the world" when there is not actually a mine there at all, it's just a depoisit.

Without notability established within the article, delete/merge/redirect (whatever I don't care), but it shouldn't stand alone as is. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This substub is very bad, and my search for sources turns up next to nothing. However, recently I did some search for sources about a Polish coal mine and found quite a few, mostly in Polish-language engineering journals. Which leads me to speculate that sources may exist - in Russian. That, however, needs to be verified by a Russian speaker. I suggest this AfD is not closed until a Russian speaker has done a search for such sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC) PS. I've changed my vote to abstein in light of sources being found below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a mine, the "Priargunsky mine" appears to be just an ordinary mine of little siginifcance presuming it even exists and not a garbled misinterpretation of Priargunsky Centre. The Priargunsky Centre is part of the Streltsovskiy district. It was and still is a significance region for the production of uranium for the Russian Federation. Is is also an area where significant research has gone into the reclamantion of abandoned mined lands and the mitigation of environmental concerns associated with large-scale mining. One problem is that the vast majority of the numerous articles about the Priargunsky Centre are in Russian and unaccessible as translations. The Priargunsky Centre (also known as the Priargunsky Mining-Chemical Production Association ???) is a significant uranium mining and processing entity in Trans-Baikal Territory of the Russian Federation. A summary article is:
Boitsov, A.V., Nikolsky, A.L., Chernigov, V.G. and Ovseichuk, V.A., 2000. Uranium production at the Priargunsky Centre (Russian Federation) and its impact on the environment (No. IAEA-SM--362). Paul H. (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment A "Priargunsky Mining and Chemical plant" is mentioned in: 1. Morozov, A. and Litvinenko, V., 2014. Development of the heap leaching of low-grade uranium ores for conditions of OJSC Priargunsky Mining and Chemical plant (PPGKhO), No. IAEA-CN--216. and 2. Pokrovskij, S.S., 1993. Priargunsky industrial mine-chemical association marks 25-th anniversary. Gornyj Zhurnal, pp.3-9. Could "Priargunsky Mining and Chemical plant" be the correct name for the "Priargunsky Mine"? Paul H. (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ru:Приаргунское производственное горно-химическое объединение They have a lignit mine and an underground uranium mine.

http://priargunsky.armz.ru/en/ Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, add more sources. A mine seems a much more notable thing than various sandwiches eaten in America or micro-NGOs promoting street dogs or whatnot. Sources above make seem it is quite a big mine as mines go. A large mine seems like a very notable thing considering the geographical area it occupies, money and jobs it has garnered, products produced, pollution, you name it. Leo Breman (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai I found plenty of sources for mining in Krasnokamensk such as [34],

[35], [36], [37], [38], but nothing SIGCOV with the name Priargunsky mine. // Timothy :: talk 19:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge. On the delete side, the Bine Mai created this article and that user has created 3,657 articles, 3.2% of which have been deleted. 3.2% seems high to me and it seems like they create articles and have not been going back and expanding them. I've seen this in other geography-related articles. I was skeptical about getting involved in the discussion of this article, but as it has not been resolved, here goes. If the mine was a community, then it might meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND because there are a few scholarly articles about the mine such as [39]. Unfortunately, the paper on the mine's first 25 years is only in Russian and not available on line, so I don't feel it can be added to the article as a reference. There are also mentions of the mine in various other references. One question is whether these sources are WP:RS. However, the Washington Post article is non-trivial coverage in a WP:RS source for the mine. However, this is not a community - it is a mine. With mines, there are often lots of articles about a non-notable mine, including mining stock press releases that are definitely not WP:RS. I found it interesting to compare this article with other uranium mines listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Articles for Verification. Most of the other articles are stubs and I don't think that they have as large a production as this location. If this gets deleted, the we really need to go through all the other mine pages listed (starting with uranium mines) and apply the same standards. As an absurd exercise, if we apply the metric that only the top three producers of each product are notable, then we should be able to quickly cut the list down :-)

The primary reason to keep this article is because it was the number one source of uranium in Russia for an entire decade (1988-1998 and 1992-2002). This makes it notable. My opinion is that where Russia gets its uranium is very interesting in part because Russia has nuclear weapons that need feedstock. Also, in 2006 it was the #4 producer of uranium world-wide. I've added support for this to the article. That said, merging with Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Kraiwould also be OK with me. Cxbrx (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Cxbrx thinks that 3.2% is high, note that 3.4% of their own creations have been deleted! Andrew🐉(talk) 20:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Well played. However, I have created only 29 articles and 1 has been deleted, so it is the problem of a small sample size. The article that was deleted concerned a company that was involved in a controversy about the Airbus 380, see Joseph Mangan. I let it slide because I had previously tangled with editors who are Airbus proponents and am adverse to conflict on Wikipedia - there are just too many things to do. The reason I bring up the number of articles deleted is because it seems that a few authors have generated a huge number of stub articles and then never gone back and filled them in. This has generated quite a bit of work. See WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force#I've got it! and below on that page. Also, this is at least the second stub article I've run in to that was created by the same editor that had problems.

About this mine, there is a 2006 NY Times article. As we now have a NY Times and a WA Post article, I think we have suitable coverage. See also Radio Free Europe and Greenpeace photos and text. I've spent quite a bit of time cleaning up non-notable geography articles, primarily in Nevada and California, but this mine seems notable to me. The NY Times article states that Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai is only present because of the mine and suggests that when the mine is gone, the town will disappear. So in many ways, this mine is more notable than some random Russian town. I'd be OK with a merge, do you want to take a shot at merging the text from the mine over to Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai? Cxbrx (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nominator. I'd like to thank everyone who participated in this AfD and, in particular, the folks who improved the article by finding sources. To the extent it matters, I no longer favor deletion and think that, at most, this article should be merged, if not kept outright. It seems that at least some of the issues I was concerned about regarding notability arise from naming issues that made it hard for me to find reliable sources. So, having read more closely at the points/sources folks were making, I think this article probably meets GNG now. Thanks again to everyone who participated and made this article better! DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I decided to be WP:BEBOLD and went ahead and merged the contents of the Priargunsky mine article in to the Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai article in part because Priargunsky mine is pretty much an orphan. If there is disagreement, then I'll pull my changes. BTW - I hate seeing text duplicated, but it seems to be very common. In the past, I've tried using WP:TRANS, but my changes have been reverted by an editor who states that transclusion does not work in their viewer. I've changed my vote to Merge. If there is no disagreement, I leave it to an admin to do the merge. Cxbrx (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nickelodeon shows and movies on CBS All Access

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

"List of X in Y" article, does not meet WP:NLIST. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would a Redirect to CBS All Access#Programming work? Foxnpichu (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sounds like a good idea to me. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)~~ Thanks for the suggestion. That could possibly work, I have no strong opinion either way. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We definitely don't need a list of one particular company's shows that happen to be on CBS All Access. If others think this would be useful as a redirect I wouldn't argue against it, but I'm not seeing it. Meters (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm more on the deletion side. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I, the Page Creator, don't believe that the page should be deleted. Redirection to CBS All Access#Programming would make the actual page longer. I am willing to start another list for other brands on CBS All Access/Paramount+ or even add other brands on the other service. Kp2016rockin (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that’s going to help much. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the entire list is not original programming of the network itself, but of another network it acquire programming from. Ajf773 (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, this seems like a quintessential "X of Y" article. No objection to redirecting, but I don't think this should be kept. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. An encyclopedia is not a TV guide or an infinite series of lists of programming history WP:WWIN. // Timothy :: talk 17:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an intersection that is not notable; I agree with Timothy, Wikipedia is not a TV Guide Spiderone 20:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Treasure of Monte Zoom

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

I've prodded it with "Unreferenced article about a TV show's story arc. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." Prodd was contesed by User:Newyorkbrad with an edit summary "desirable article". Uh, ok, Brad, can you explain how unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT is desirable? It's pure WP:ALLPLOT with no claim of significance. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends Several incoming links, but nothing indication notability for a standalone article. Jeepday (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends per nom and above. Does not have SIGCOV for a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 05:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. It's very telling that there are no citations. And what would there be to cite, a primary source? All plot. FalconK (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trustwave SecureBrowsing

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

stale, non-notable, no WP:RS, promotional ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 06:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 06:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 06:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 06:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this passes WP:NSOFT. Advertisment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional fails WP:NSOFT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at all. Heart ^(talk) 14:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trustwave Holdings: Barely found anything about the plug-in. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Article seems like a company advertisement. --Philosophicalscientist (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callision

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. The article does cite one potentially usable review, which seems to be a decent independent source; however, it is quite brief, and the multiple high-quality sources required to satisfy NCORP do not appear to exist. – Teratix ₵ 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable company with no supporting valid sources. Some are PR. Google news did not bring up anything good. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with Expertwikiguy, not finding anything notable on google news, No obvious meeting of WP:N Jeepday (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Hari

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP- coverage is passing mentions in two lists of films nominated for awards. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-10 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at this version of the article, which was heavily edited by a sock IP of a blocked, disruptive editor, there are a number of other sources. Most of them appear to be passing mentions, some are 404s, some are duplicates of some of the others, I think. Some other source found include TBIVision.com and C21media.net. The second one is definitely a press release site, but I'm not sure about TBI or if it is a reliable source in this context. Another source here. From what I can tell, Kidscreen is a trade magazine as well as a company that hosts a summit each year to bring together companies and people producing content in the children's animation space. So they appear to be central to a lot of the wheeling/dealing. I don't see that they've been discussed at WP:RSN before, but this is potentially a reliable source that is talking about Studio Hari's workings in some detail. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — What HighKing said. I agree with their rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aparna Mishra

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

Not a notable actress who does not satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She has played small roles, mostly uncredited, in a number of television shows. A Google search of her does not reveal much. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete

@Umakant Bhalerao: Not a notable actress.....A Google search of her does not reveal much

I agree with you on this point Sir that the television actress is not a big notable celebrity and which is the reason why google search does reveal much. However, I would like to point out that the very first substantive hit on search button of google with the subject Aparna Mishra actress takes you to her!

@Umakant Bhalerao: does not satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG

I strongly disagree with this argument of yours. It would be false to claim that the actress does not fulfill any criterion from WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG! The actress started her career in 2015 and within a period of 5 years, she has worked in 8 different shows and one music album, which in itself is an achievement as an actor/actress, it's not a judgement from a commoner like me, but I'm sure any filmaker, director, producer who are part of the Indian television Industry would agree to the same.

Secondly,

@Umakant Bhalerao: She has played small roles, mostly uncredited, in a number of television shows.

This argument is INVALID, because out of the 8 shows the subject has worked in, 4 shows which are Yeh Hai Aashiqui Siyappa Ishq Ka, Kaala Teeka, Pyaar Tune Kya Kiya were one of the most popular Hindi soap-operas of the particular time period during which it was broadcast. Next, Savdhaan India is the one of the most longest running Indian television series. Finally, the show of which the subject is currently part of Kumkum Bhagya is one among the top 3 shows according to latest barc ratings i.e. barc rating week 46 2020. So, it should be noted that majority of the shows in which the subject has worked in are popular shows. It is next to impossible task for any actor/actress to get a role only in a popular/credited television series.

Next, it should be noted that she has NOT ONLY PLAYED SUPPORTING AND RECURRING ROLES. In the popular series, Pyaar Tune Kya Kiya, she was the episodic lead Sahiba opposite Shagun Pandey and again another episodic lead Palak in Pyar Pehli Baar, which was not that popular but still it was the spin-off of the popular series Pyaar Tune Kya Kiya. It should also be noted that in one of the most popular longest-running Indian series, Savdhaan India, she played the titular role. A Titular role is considered as important as the lead role in television soap-operas.

Finally, though playing a supporting role in Kumkum Bhagya, the subject, actress Aparna Mishra is often found in discussion in the articles of Tellychakkar, Pinkvilla, Bollywoodtimes. These sources are considered unreliable by Wikipedia, but a large number of articles about Indian televison series, actors and actresses use them as their main references. Nevertheless, there are also discussions about the subject in certain articles of Kumkum Bhagya in Times of India. Even earlier in 2016, she was found in discussions in several unreliable resources of Wikipedia when she got the lead role of Sahiba in Pyaar Tune Kya Kiya and was a part of Kaala Teeka.

Thus, all these arguments mostly nullify the arguments put down by Umakant Bhalerao to delete the article on the subject Aparna Mishra.

However, I leave the decision to experienced editors and admins of Wikipedia and will have no issues if the final decision is to delete the article Aparna Mishra

--Aleyamma38 (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if "Savdhaan India" means "Attention India", how could Mishra play the "Titular role"? A titular role would be Prabhas as Baahubali in Baahubali: The Beginning. You see, he played a character whose name was in the title. Titular = tit(le)+ular. Did Mishra play a character named Attention India? No, probably not. You also seem to be misunderstand Umakant's comment. "She has played small roles, mostly uncredited, in a number of television shows." For some reason you incorrectly think this means that the show was minor, when what they are saying is that the roles were minor. When you declare someone's argument as invalid, you should probably understand what their argument is saying. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: if "Savdhaan India" means "Attention India", how could Mishra play the "Titular role"?... Did Mishra play a character named Attention India? No, probably not.

Even if I do not try to hide my boldface. You are unable to hide your pride with your mocking tone. But it's good to have pride as a wikipedian admin.

So as a part of my explanation, Savadhaan India is one of the longest running Indian television series consisting of episodics. I guess being an admin , you would probably know what an episodic means?

So in this series of episodics, Savdhaan India, in Season 4 Episode 19, titled Who Killed Munni?, Mishra played the role of Munni. Now, can you see what I meant by saying Mishra has played a titular role?

--Aleyamma38 (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: For some reason you incorrectly think this means that the show was minor, when what they are saying is that the roles were minor. When you declare someone's argument as invalid, you should probably understand what their argument is saying

Of course Sir, I very well understood what their argument, but for sure you are misinterpreting my argument. I may not be an experienced editor, but I'm neither a fool too. Only for countering the argument that her roles are minor, I have given the point of Mishra playing two lead roles and one titular role.

Next I have also pointed out the notability of her shows to point out to the notability of her work. So please, it would be appreciated if my arguments are not misinterpreted here.-Thank you

--Aleyamma38 (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no issues with the admins' decision

I honestly have no issues if the final decision is to delete this wikipedia article. Please delete it if the experienced editors and admins of wikipedia feel it should be deleted.

So, there will no more arguments from my side in defense for not deleting the article Aparna Mishra.

-Thank you

--Aleyamma38 (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleyamma38: Please properly indent your replies so that it is clear what comments you are responding to. I have fixed this for you.

...the very first substantive hit on search button of google with the subject Aparna Mishra actress takes you to her! This doesn't mean anything to the community. Google hits do not suggest notability. Per our General Notability Guideline, a subject is potentially notable when they receive significant coverage (in-depth writing) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or if the subject meets the qualifications of WP:NACTOR.
...Mishra is often found in discussion in the articles of Tellychakkar, Pinkvilla, Bollywoodtimes. These sources are considered unreliable by Wikipedia, but a large number of articles about Indian televison series, actors and actresses use them as their main references. As you were previously told in the deletion discussion about Zeeshan Khan, the fact that other editors have relied on poor sources in other articles doesn't mean that you get to rely on those poor sources in defense of this article's existence.
...there are also discussions about the subject in certain articles of Kumkum Bhagya in Times of India. You provided no evidence of this, but it is also doubtful that she received anything other than a passing mention. I can only find fluff like this and this. Passing mentions.
...within a period of 5 years, she has worked in 8 different shows and one music album, Everybody has to work. That doesn't make them deserving of an encyclopedia article.
Next I have also pointed out the notability of her shows to point out to the notability of her work. The popularity of a television series doesn't by default make the subject more notable, so it's unclear what relevance this has here. Someone playing a background character on the most popular series in the world doesn't mean they should have an encyclopedia article.
...I have given the point of Mishra playing two lead roles and one titular role. You have not demonstrated that she was the lead role in multiple series, you demonstrated that she was a guest star in single episodes of a non-serialised show. And your interpretation of what a titular role is, is based on a selective interpretation inconsistent with what most people would consider a titular role to be. Someone playing a character in one episode of a television series, where the character's name appears in the title of the episode, does not qualify as a "titular role". That just makes them a guest star. Someone appearing as a guest star in one episode does not mean that they had a major role in that series. And no, a guest star in an episodic show is not equivalent to someone being the lead in a soap opera or other serial. If you want clarification on what constitutes a lead role or a titular role as it pertains to demonstrating notability, feel free to ask at WikiProject Television.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Please properly indent your replies so that it is clear what comments you are responding to. I have fixed this for you.

First of all my extreme apologies for that and thanks a lot Sir for helping me out with it.

@Cyphoidbomb: You have not demonstrated that she was the lead role in multiple series, you demonstrated that she was a guest star in single episodes of a non-serialised show

Sir, for making your part clear, you are rather twisting and turning my arguments. I had put my arguments for that earlier but you had turned blind to for whatever reason, but now I'm putting them once again in BOLD below; Next, it should be noted that she has NOT ONLY PLAYED SUPPORTING AND RECURRING ROLES. In the popular series, Pyaar Tune Kya Kiya, she was the episodic lead Sahiba opposite Shagun Pandey and again another episodic lead Palak in Pyar Pehli Baar, which was not that popular but still it was the spin-off of the popular series Pyaar Tune Kya Kiya. The evidence for these are already given by me in the references of the article of the subject which are [40] and [41]

Someone appearing as a guest star in one episode does not mean that they had a major role in that series. And no, a guest star in an episodic show is not equivalent to someone being the lead in a soap opera or other serial. If you want clarification on what constitutes a lead role or a titular role as it pertains to demonstrating notability, feel free to ask at WikiProject Television.

Sir, I need not ask at WikiProject Television, but you need to CHECK IT OUT BETTER about the series and her role. Of course, the subject had a major role in the series. The way YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING, my argument makes it doubtful that you want to delete this article at any cost! If you have doubts then please check with the series producers, who gives roles for every episodics. And even after that you have doubts, then if you know Hindi, please do watch that particular episode i.e. Savdhaan India Season 4 Episode 19, don't worry of finding it because I have given the reference for it in her article Aparna Mishra [42]. If you do not understand Hindi, then the website Hotstar does provide the option of subtitles. And, leave about Wikipedian editors like you and me, any normal television viewer, would agree that Mishra was not a guest star in the series.

Everybody has to work. That doesn't make them deserving of an encyclopedia article.

My apologies that I'm mentioning this once again, but since you have raised it. In that way, why do the UNREFERENCED AND UNEDITED ARTICLES deserve AN ENCYCLOPEDIA?

As you were previously told in the deletion discussion about Zeeshan Khan, the fact that other editors have relied on poor sources in other articles doesn't mean that you get to rely on those poor sources in defense of this article's existence.

Of course, I will not from now on wards, because I understood that It's worthless! for me, but worthy, for certain others.

You provided no evidence of this, but it is also doubtful that she received anything other than a passing mention. I can only find fluff like this and this. Passing mentions.

My extreme apologies that I forgot to provide the evidence at that time, but yes these were the articles that I was talking about. As you have pointed out Sir, you are right that she just received passing mentions. But, even more than that, it should be noted that the show Kumkum Bhagya gives her role for maybe once or twice a week and her role is something completely unimportant in the series. But even after that, if the subject has gained atleast passing mentions, is indeed a big deal as a television actress. This is not just my judgement, but yes a judgment of any commoner from Indian television industry.

This doesn't mean anything to the community. Google hits do not suggest notability. Per our General Notability Guideline, a subject is potentially notable when they receive significant coverage (in-depth writing) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or if the subject meets the qualifications of WP:NACTOR.

I agree with you, regarding the notability Sir, but please note carefully that I had not mentioned it for showing notability of Mishra but I had given it as a counter argument for Umakant Bhalerao's argument: A Google search of her does not reveal much

@Cyphoidbomb: Most important of all, I did say this several times earlier and even now I am saying that I have no issues with the deletion of this article Aparna Mishra, if that is going to be final decision of the experienced editors and admins of Wikipedia.

--Aleyamma38 (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A few episodic roles and one recurring role in a current series, even if popular, is not enough to fulfill NACTOR. Sunshine1191 (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RDM (film director)

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

Not a notable director who does not satisfy either WP:DIRECTOR or WP:GNG. Has directed a Tamil film which is yet to come out. A cut-and-dried case of WP:TOOSOON. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No support for WP:DIRECTOR Kolma8 (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this is WP:TOOSOON at best. Could also be redirected to Kavalthurai Ungal Nanban Spiderone 23:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linnie, California

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

Another siding on a now abandoned SP line, this report from 1957 reveals that it existed to serve a local barite mine. Definitely not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor railroad station/siding, fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG per nom. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Comedy Couple. A singer's popularity does not contribute directly to their meeting our notability standards, and so comments pointing to popularity carry little weight. As such there's consensus here that this creation occurred too soon; if more coverage becomes available, the history will remain available to anyone wishing to recreate this. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanmaya Bhatnagar

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

Non notable singer who does not satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. A Google search of her mostly shows mentions and no in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable sources was found to qualify for WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: It's disheartening to see this nomination. She is one of the popular Indie folk singers under Independent record label. Her works are published in reliable sources (for example:Rolling stone). She already made her Bollywood playback singing debut with romantic drama Comedy Couple as a composer. Listeners (including musician like A. R. Rahman) say that such Indie folk creators are more relatable and trendsetting than other popular artists. She definitely meets WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. (Note to admins & reviewers: I was the creator of this article) Nalbarian (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nalbarian: Being a singer is not an assertion of notability. They need to satisfy a notability criteria which subject of this article fails to satisfy any relevant criteria. The Rolling stone article contains significant discussion of the subject, but multiple such sources are needed to establish notability.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:SINGER. She clearly "[h]as been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." For instance, [43], [44], [45]. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate: Please look carefully, ref 1 has been published through rollingstoneindia and is a duplicate article to [46]. In order to qualify for WP:GNG, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is needed. Ref 2 & 3 are announcements of her music release and do not amount to establishing notability.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the Magzter article is a re-publishing of the one on the Rolling Stone website. I'd still go with keep though, she has enough coverage to meet WP:SINGER as there is no indication that the coverage is non-independent. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my assessment of each source cited. Reference 1 is an announcement of music release and is based on comments from the subject herself. The second one is a tweet. The third one does not even mention her. The forth reference is a press release article mentioning her in passing. The fifth one is a link to a video song from Comedy Couple that the subject has composed. The sixth one is an announcement of her second song. While sixth reference is based on an interview. These sources do not add up to WP:SIGCOV. Being covered through independent sources is not the only criteria for inclusion. These sources should address the topic directly and in detail.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just have one more thing to add to the argument: As per [rules], she " has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.." For example, Spotify: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Links- Spotify Chai & Acoustic [47] and Sad Indie Bops [48]. Nalbarian (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She also meets composers and lyricists criteria as she wrote every song (including for the film Comedy Couple). Nalbarian (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are reliable and enough. From my point of view, she is a budding star. Dwain09877 (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her only major work Comedy Couple as per point 10. This is a probable case of WP:TOOSOON and she might be there one day, but not now. Her only major work is in this film, the other two YouTube singles don't have any major coverage to be notable. And no, a mention from someone on Twitter is not a notability criterion yet. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The9Man, those songs are not some mere YouTube songs and all songs of her are well-received in multiple music related reliable sites. We’re living in an age of singles, and there are tons of ways to put one song to work. Modern singers distribute their song as a single to various platforms like YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music. For instance- Just saw that one of her song is for sale on Amazon [[49]] and other songs are available on all major platforms. Redirect does not do justice to such Indie Folk unique singers. They sing and write songs for a movie and move on. Nalbarian (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter where a singer distributes a song. If it doesn't meet the requirements of notability, it is not notable. A search on these two songs gives only the listing results on various platforms. There is no secondary significant coverage. They sing and write songs for a movie and move on is not a valid argument to have an individual article either. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A review needs detailed observations (lyrics, unique styles, catchy melodies, instruments etc.). See these links - [50] [51] Nalbarian (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, those are not reviews. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect (I leave it up to closer to decide, I suppose). I wasn't convinced by any of the sourcing I found aside from the Rolling Stone pieces (and wow, the quality of RS India is nothing like the American RS) and that is just one source publishing a lot about her because clearly one of the writers is a fan. I dug deep, and again, not enough for me to find that she passes GNG or MUSICIAN. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything to show that this person meets either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Kolma8 (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion. May be WP:TOOSOON.☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 14:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hope we're not violating this. Please redirect. Don't delete. After few years, someone responsible editor from us will start from that point. Nalbarian (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rocking K, California

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

This one was more of a pain to search than one might have guessed, because there is a "Rocking K Foods" in San Diego which generates lots of false hits, and there may be another place in the state as well. But from what I can determine, this was originally, as you might expect, the Rocking K Ranch, and it shows up as such in some 1950s Sat. Evening Post ads. Apparently it was being run as a resort. In the early-mid-1990s it was developed into the neighborhood that can be seen today, so that there is this isolated rectangle of green to the west outside Bishop with a very motley collection of houses in it. Even then I can't find any real reference to it as a neighborhood or anything past some legal issues in its development. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently a subdivision that didn't materialize into much, fails Geoland#2. Reywas92^Talk 02:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JSL Singh

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

Unsourced advertisement, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reads like spam to me. Not entirely sure why this spam has survived for 6 years now. Java Hurricane 06:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would be a BLP proposed deletion, but we are here. Unsourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, Twinkle help tooltip specifically said new unsourced BLPs, but i'll remember I can BLPPROD in the future, thank you. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 02:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spammy and person is not notable -Xclusivzik (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person and spammy, per Xclusivzik. COI also applies, as the article creator only edited this before he disappeared into thin air. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks reliable sources. I always thought BLPprod was limited to absolutely no sources, that means if you have atrociously non-reliable and primary sources, BLP prob does not work. I think at one point BLP prob essentially grandfathered old biographies of living people, but at some point we gave that up and opened it to any article on someone who is still alive. How it applies to unsouced articles on people who may be alive is a little trickier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talus, California

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

Yet another the the series of spots along the abandoned SP line through Inyo County, this one, like Alico, shows up on topos as a short spur to some mining operation. No sign of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Nothing found in newspapers.com or GBooks. Cxbrx (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is something different, and is non-notable anyway. Beyond that, I'm just finding stuff for a ship and the type of rock formation known as Talus. Doesn't seem to be notable or significant. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Varthamanam

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

This is an unreleased film, which is not notable as per the future film guidelines. Naïve Google search shows publicity information about the movie with release dates of both 2020 and 2021, which is not encouraging because that means it may be in development limbo. Unreleased films are only notable if production itself is notable, and this article says nothing about production. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Although the film features prominent actors, it does not make a subject notable per NOTINHERITED. According to the source thenewsminute the film has been shot. The film may have been pushed back owing to the ongoing coronavirus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizal batliwala (talk • contribs) 12:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-11 ✍️ create, 2018-10 ✗ PROD

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ops reasoning is solid, can't say it better. I'll only add a note that the main 'sig-cov' source is the E-Times (TOI) which is known to do paid promo. Zindor (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Las Vegas Atlantic Grand Prix

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

This individual race report of this formerly second-tier series to CART/Champ Car has not meet the notability standards for motor racing. Nothing has been established to determine its long-term notability. MWright96 (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can reliable sources be found which which give the event coverage outside of the context of the event it was supporting? If so, it can be considered notable enough to warrant an article provided someone can find the time to turn the article into something which reasonably reflects those sources. If they only give it coverage in the context of the event it was supporting then perhaps its contents should be merged into the article of that event. Edit: Checking Google the only article I seem to be able to find is one which is primarily about James Hinchcliffe and only mentions the race in passing. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @HumanBodyPiloter5: Through research in databases, it seems that the only coverage is passing coverage or just mentioning the results of the race. Furthermore, accessing the Champ Car Atlantic website via archive.org, many of the links for the Las Vegas race have returned no archive links for the articles themselves. MWright96 (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. MWright96 (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. withdrawn (non-admin closure) Vexations (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Schulnik

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

~~I see no indictation of WP:GNG being met here.~~ Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: the main indication that she is notable is found in the list of many collections. I found sources to back up six of the collections, which means she meets WP:ARTIST part 4) d. There is zero chance this can be deleted, so it should be withdrawn.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing as the subject meets WP:ARTIST. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per User:Nsk92. Let's see if we can expand it with some sourcing and go from there. Missvain (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Neuroscience Society

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

Cognitive Neuroscience Society does not seem almost at all notable. The journal itself (Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience) does not seem to be related since the official website says "Published by the MIT Press and the Cognitive Neuroscience Institute" which does not seem to be the same as Cognitive Neuroscience Society. Google doesn't return almost anything except for a facebook page with 25k followers. In light of this, it seems this article does not meet WP:NOTE and I can't find any relevant news sources to back up the notability of this page. Therefore, I propose a deletion. Revan (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Revan (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Revan (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll provide a more substantive comment later but the nom appears to be correct that the joural in question is not published by this society. There is a blog post at the society's webpage about the history of the journal[52], which notes that the first editor-in-chief was Michael Gazzaniga, a founder of the society. But that appears to have been the extent of the connection. I have removed the sentence about the journal from the article. Nsk92 (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This society may not be particularly large (seems to be about 2K+ members) but it gets a reasonable amount of coverage in the newsmedia, as far as academic societies go. There are examples of news articles covering the society itself, specifically, such as this article about the CNS 2018 annual meeting in Boston. Here is an editorial blog post from the Scientific American about the 2012 annual meeting of the CNS. More typical are articles that discuss some of the society's actovities, in various degrees of detail. Recent examples include Science [53] and Nature [54], where responses of scientific societies to the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed. The CNS gets a few paragraphs in each. Most news stories concern various studies presented at CNS meetings. That's still nontrivial coverage, and there's a lot of it over 600+ GNews hits. Here are some samples at NYT [55][56][57]. Looking at the CNS governing board, one can see right away that the organization is legit: Marie Banich has h-index 77[58]], Roberto Cabeza has h-index 97 [59], Marta Kutas has h-index 110 [60], and so on. Overall passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 18:37, 10 November 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)} 16:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 'delete' arguments are more solidly grounded in policy, particularly in making the case that she is only known for one event. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Herzog

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

The sources here are insufficient to establish notability. The sources are either by the subject of the article, opinion, or brief mentions in a source not primarily about her Rab V (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the BLP's name is the first two words of an NYT article, of whatever sort, that's a dead giveaway that the piece counts. [61]. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The NYT article states that Herzog "was a largely unknown freelance journalist." Does the reaction to one article push her over? Agree with nom that not enough RS are actually about her. Caro7200 (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one event does not make someone notable. Cancel culture has become far too common to make every victim default notable. That an article leads by dropping your name when you are "a largely unknown freelance journalist" does not make you default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tepid Keep she's author of an influential substack about dog neutering Moose Nuggets and if her page is deleted, she'll go on and on about her wiki cancelling on her "podcast" 2601:645:4201:BBD0:D42B:FC32:6002:903B (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesse, was that you? *Dan T.* (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are not enough reliable sources about this journalist to meet WP:GNG. Herzog's claim to notability seems to be writing an article on detransitioning for which she received criticism. Reliable independent sources cover that incident to the exclusion of anything more substantive, making this a BLP subject to WP:BIO1E. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 07:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Journalist who is mentioned in reliable sources and writes for multiple reliable sources. Nomination for deletion is bizarre. Are people concerned about disk space? This feels like a sock puppet move tbh...
Comment: The subject of the article is linking to this deletion discussion from her social media here. If new editors and fans of the Herzog are coming from off-site canvassing please be aware this isn't a majority vote. Substantive arguments based on wikipedia policy are given more weight in AFD discussions. Also please stay WP:CIVIL; don't accuse editors without evidence of being sock puppets simply because they do not agree with you. Rab V (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Also covered in https://spectator.us/purple-podcasters-blocked-reported-singal-herzog-political-orphanage/.— James Cantor (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP states that articles from The Spectator should be treated as opinion pieces or newsblogs, which can not be used to establish notability. Rab V (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I won't write this in "vote-like" style as I have at least a minor "conflict of interest" being a follower of her/Jesse's podcast who likes it, so I'm not an objective observer. But I think even if I didn't I'd be at least mildly on the side of keeping because I think the deletionism of this site is excessive; we're not a paper document with limited space, so why not cover even mildly notable things/people, if it can be done in neutral point of view? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet the criteria for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C3:8000:5B40:6D89:9883:6605:20F0 (talk) 21:56, 14 November 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)} 16:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fall on the wrong side of the only known for one thing line. Writers need to be written about to warrant entries here, and I'm just not seeing enough evidence of that happening in a sustained way. Nor does the event itself seem to have been a matter of lasting interest. One magazine article that got a hostile reception is not a substantial body of work. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A laid-off journalist for a paper with a circulation of over 80 000, local at best. delete Oaktree b (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a pretty clear WP:BLP1E case. AFAICT the only notable thing she was close to was her writing a controversial magazine article, and that doesn't seem to warrant a BLP. Perhaps some of this content could be moved into a page about the article and its reception if there's consensus that the controversy is notable, but from a cursory Google search I don't think it is. SreySros (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting the higher standard at WP:BLP. Likely doesn't meet the WP:GNG either. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oheneba Nana Yaw Boamah

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

No coverage. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-11 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of WP:SIGCOV i.e. WP:RS providing more than a brief mention Spiderone 07:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Corbin (author)

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's been dead for 20 years and I've not heard of any of his books. Seems to be a run-of-the-mill children's author. Oaktree b (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for passing WP:AUTHOR with flying colors. The specific criteria is "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". A movie (by Disney and starring Ron Howard) based on one of his books and a television series too shows that Corbin is anything but run-of-the mill. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of the criterion for an author; in addition to the film and television series, there are multiple reviews cited for his novels in the article. It also mentions that his books won unspecified awards. The first source is an extensive encyclopedia article that could easily be used to improve the article greatly. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - There is ample wide coverage of the subject's books, most of which have been reviewed by Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. At least two of his books were released by Simon & Schuster, one of the top 5 traditional publishing houses in the U.S. This article more than meets WP:GNG and easily passes WP:AUTHOR. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DiamondRemley39 and AuthorAuthor. One of his novels, Smoke, became a classic 1970 TV movie with a major star. According to WorldCat, Smoke is in 267 libraries; Deadline is in 21, A Dog Worth Stealing is in 129, and The day Willie wasn't is in 45. The pup with the up-and-down tail was featured in Weekly Reader, which means millions of kids read it, and it remains in 100 libraries. As a teacher who has taught or subbed in every grade from Kindergarten to college, I see lots of books and forget who wrote what, but I am always learning. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca De Grandis

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BASIC. I count one very short review of one of her books ([62]) and virtually nothing else. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 9 November 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)} 16:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly seems notable as a Wiccan poet. Oaktree b (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it fail WP:NAUTHOR No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to merge or redirect. Missvain (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Sheffield

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject doesn't meet GNG. Of the current sources, most were written by Sheffield himself. The Ives article doesn't mention Sheffield and the only independent source that does, the Media Matters post, is by a partisan advocacy group and shouldn't be counted for notability. I did a search and was unable to locate any substantial independent coverage on Sheffield. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the first deletion discussion, back in 2015, closed as redirect. (t · c) buidhe 05:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The journalist himself his non notable, but his notability is vested in his author page on well notable organization, but the concern is about the independent of the source of the subject. Lynndonald (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - active journalist referenced by multiple sources even in the past week (The New York Times, Newsweek, Detroit Metro Times, NBC, ...) 73.69.184.160 (talk) 12:08, 14 November 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)} 16:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Christi International Peace Award

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

Non-notable award. Page created entirely from primary sources Ch1p the chop (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The award was mentioned already in 5+ other articles on here, so that seems pretty notable to me. I will add some more sources. --Shikeishu (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll look through the additional sources, but generally, a mere mention of a topic in a reliable source does not make that topic notable. The topic needs to be featured in a reliable source which is independent of the organisation. See WP:NCORP

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-11 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One of the comments looks like a keep vote (based on the number of sources), so I do not believe a soft delete would be appropriate in this case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments by Shikeishu and Spirit of Eagle. This is a multi-sourced article (7 are unique) which is also well-integrated to other articles (approx. 20) and it even has its own main article at Pax Christi. It is worth preserving. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 13:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nicaragua 2001

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

Beauty pageant sourced to a single fansite, pageantopolis.com. The reliability of the site has been assessed and found unreliable at WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources. It is unlikely that there are more high quality sources due to its relative obscurity. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nicaragua 2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Nicaragua 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Perú 1953 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Perú 1993 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Perú 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Perú 2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Perú 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Perú 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Perú 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexandra Liao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am bundling the articles listed above for the same reason – they are all single-source articles relying on the same fansite. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have bundled a Miss Peru contestant, Alexandra Liao as failing the WP:BLP1E notability policy. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack the news media sources to show that these are widely followed events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - if we are unable to reliably source these articles then, unfortunately, they should not be retained and to do so would be to violate the core Wikipedia principles Spiderone 21:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the high number of bundled articles, this discussion would benefit from some further input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 15:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked at the Spanish versions of the articles and you can see some reliable sources cited and also if you try to google search you will find some more. The articles need a lot of work and improvement but deletion is not the solution.--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richie Campbell: Can you show us the reliable sources for discussion? - Bri.public (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Spanish version and some through google search. Here's a sample from the 2013 edition of Miss Nicaragua:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130305130658/http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/nacionales/279350-nastassja-bolivar-miss-nicaragua-2013

https://www.univision.com/shows/nuestra-belleza-latina/nastassja-bolivar-es-miss-nicaragua-2013

https://peopleenespanol.com/article/le-quitaron-la-corona-de-miss-nicaragua-nastassja-bolivar/

https://ticotimes.net/2014/01/21/after-prolonged-dispute-miss-nicaragua-2013-loses-her-crown

https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/blogs/mas-alla-de-la-corona/ex-nuestra-belleza-latina-nastassja-bol%C3%ADvar-es-la-184717289.html

https://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/nacionales/279350-nastassja-bolivar-es-miss-nicaragua-2013/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/hoy/ct-hoy-8374955-la-historia-detras-del-traje-de-nastassja-bolivar-story.html

https://www.diariolasamericas.com/miss-nicaragua-2013-nastassja-bolivar-se-queda-corona-n2900198

https://www.tvynovelas.com/us/noticias/le-quitan-la-coronaanastassjabolivar/

https://theobjective.com/nastassja-bolivar-miss-nicaragua-2013-7b66e

https://www.nacion.com/viva/farandula/nastassja-bolivar-le-responde-a-organizacion-de-miss-nicaragua/3J3XFSIJVRHRRMDLBUAQT4HDFI/story/

https://www.nacion.com/viva/farandula/madre-de-miss-nicaragua-2013-pide-que-dejen-a-su-hija-coronar-a-la-siguiente-reina/H2CJXCJMQNCOTFWD2IKY7CASAE/story/

https://www.nacion.com/viva/farandula/mama-de-miss-nicaragua-nastassja-bolivar-aboga-por-su-hija/QWXG64ZWAFBTLEISSKGJS6G44M/story/

https://www.nacion.com/viva/farandula/marline-barberena-lista-para-conquistar-el-miss-universo/2KFKQ6Y43ZCCBJKKT6FMQAH3IA/story/

https://tucson.com/laestrella/gente/miss-nicaragua-se-queda-sin-su-corona/article_df87d0a6-839a-11e3-8558-001a4bcf887a.html

https://www.laprensa.com.ni/2013/03/02/espectaculo/136738-miss-nicaragua-2013-es-nastassja-bolivar

https://www.lajornadanet.com/index.php/2017/01/21/lo-que-desea-nastassja-bolivar-miss-nicaragua-2013-para-marina-jacoby-una-de-las-:::preferidas-del-concurso-miss-universo/#.X9F4fi2ZNBz

https://ahoramismo.com/entretenimiento/2016/02/nastassja-bolivar-nuestra-belleza-latina-2011-nbl-miss-universo-miss-nicaragua-novio/

https://www.lavozdelsandinismo.com/nicaragua/2014-01-22/despojan-de-su-corona-de-reina-miss-nicaragua-2013/ Richie Campbell (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time is the charm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep – No prejudice toward nominating separately. It is clear that there is some source coverage for these pageants. No offense intended, and I could be wrong, but I don't get the impression that the delete !voters engaged in source searching for all of these numerous articles. Unfortunately, the Find sources template AFD template has not been provided beneath each separate nomination to facilitate source searching. Rationales for deletion above come across as assuming that references are not available. For example, the in the nomination, it is stated, "It is unlikely that there are more high quality sources", but reliable sources have been provided later in the discussion, and those are just for one pageant, the Miss Nicaragua 2013 article. One of the delete !votes states, "we lack the news media sources to show that these are widely followed events", but this comes across as potentially basing notability upon the state of sourcing in the articles, rather than per the availability of sources (see WP:NEXIST). Likewise, the third delete !vote states, "if we are unable to reliably source these articles then, unfortunately, they should not be retained", which comes across that the articles are unable to be properly sourced, but again, notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, and just because nobody has come along to add sources to the articles does not necessarily equate to a lack of independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage being available. Essentially, these rationales comes across as an assumption that since sources have not been added to the articles, that none are therefore available (e.g. WP:NOIMPROVEMENT). However, this is false, because some sources have been provided, and just for one of the pageants, and the user that posted them has also stated that more are available that have not been posted here. None of the delete !voters have revisited the discussion at this time to assess the sources presented as well. The provision of sources in and of itself counters most of the rationales for deletion that have been presented herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no problem in nominating certain individual articles. But the reasonings of Northamerica1000 have me convinced Keep is the best way to close this mass nomination.BabbaQ (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what went wrong here, but, the additional "bundled" articles were not properly processed. They have to be manually processed now. Sigh. Missvain (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Augusts Vilis Abakuks

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. Article makes no claim of notability. Sources in the article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Two sources in the article are database entries. // Timothy :: talk 02:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deputy head of a local government at the county level is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL — at that level of significance, the notability test requires reliably sourced evidence of his importance, not just cursory verification of his existence. And no, having subsequently been the founder and chairman of a non-notable organization isn't a notability booster either. I can't read Latvian or access 80-year-old Latvian sources, so I'm perfectly willing to reconsider this if somebody can demonstrate that he was actually more notable than this article indicates — but the lack of an article about him on the Latvian Wikipedia suggests I shouldn't hold my breath. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete county level positions are never enough for default notability, and there is not enough sources to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deputy head of local branch. Geschichte (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renee V. H. Simons

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

Not a single in-depth source about the subject of the article. While inspirational, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge She worked to get it listed in the NRHP, could be a brief mention in that article. Not enough on her own to warrant notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her experience in sharing her corporate knowledge with Taproot after climbing the ladder to a senior vice presidency, combined with her efforts post-professional life in non-profits should provide the notability. While mentions in the times and in magazine articles are reputable sources, her story, is one of striving to succeed as a black woman in corporate america, who leveraged that to the benefit of her community. The article in black enterprise is in depth and worth reading to learn about this facinating person. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with NGOs. Great for her her life turned out fine, but not a particularly notable person. Not my field, but dozens of people I know might as well get wikipedia articles if this is the bar. Sentences like "worked at fortune 500 companies" silly, so has every dude stocking shelves at Walmart. Leo Breman (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article seems to me to straddle the line of WP:GNG, with the Black Enterprise profile, significant coverage in the context of a number of the SANS articles, and the multiple minor business awards. I acknowledge that my opinion is influenced by the hundreds of stubs that we keep because the person stepped on to the pitch once. In this instance, we have a black woman achieving moderate success in the corporate world and then having a significant impact on her community. I think the cumulative effect of the coverage is sufficient to keep the article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recently created and cites almost no sources. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth coverage from sources. I tried to verify the award she supposedly got from YMCA but the reference is just her CV posted as a short biographical note to an event she spoke, thus an autobiography. Searching on the net for her name-YMCA-award combination the only results I got back was the WP article and the abovementioned reference on the subject. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Kolma8 (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:GNG - additions and revisions to the article help show the significance of coverage that has been WP:SUSTAINED, and that Simons is not WP:LOWPROFILE, e.g. Simons has given "one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication," and has "participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for ... a cause" that has been documented directly and in detail by multiple sources. Per WP:BASIC, the combination of multiple independent sources in the article seems to help demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Vukadinov

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

Participating in a Chess Olympiad is not sufficient for WP:NCHESS unless you or your team get a medal - and the only coverage I can find of Vukadinov in reliable sources is routine coverage of his Olympiad appearance which just mentions the team's performance (not sufficient for WP:GNG/WP:NBIO). According to ChessGames, he's just a National Master (a relatively low title whose standards vary by country but are never above a reasonably skilled amateur level). — Bilorv (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article dedicated to Vukadinov's memory in En Passant, June 2003, pp. 21–34 (original link is down; mirror) provides enough material for a short article. It notes that Vukadinov was ranked as high as 8th in Canada in the 1970s, and had US and Canadian ratings above 2400, which is significantly more than the minimum 2200 requirement for a national master in those countries. Ten references to Milan Vukadinov in the Google-digitized Windsor Star: most are trivial but the article on December 15, 1980 is more substantial. Canadian Serbs: A History of Their Social and Cultural Traditions (1856-2002), p. 181 notes four more sources dated 1975–1981 from The Times (Detroit), The London Free Press, a Serbian newspaper in Toronto, and the magazine Michigan Chess. Cobblet (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There were profiles of him after his death in the Globe and Mail [63] and Toronto Star [64]. As mentioned above he was profiled in the Windsor Star [65] [66] [67]. I think this allows him to pass WP:GNG. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Nardia

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

Time to put this up for removal: person with no inherent notability, no breathtaking achievements that cry out for notability, no reliable sources of any credence providing proper discussion. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added more links to English and international sources proving the notability of the guy. Romayan (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that, but this reads like a press release, this is from a local British paper whose authority to declare someone the "world’s leading expert in a self-defence martial art" is highly questionable, and those "Asian" sources like this are hardly in-depth sourcing: that one reads simply like a commercial blurb. None of these can be argued to be sufficient, and sufficiently reliable and independent, sources to write a BLP. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nardia is defenitely notable: Black Belt Magazine, and Israel Hayom: two excellent sources. Tzahy (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a martial arts instructor. Didn't found the Karap federation or invent some new technique. Oaktree b (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see the notability here. Number 5 7 23:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There is coverage in Black Belt magazine, but that's only one source. The remaining sources are from the KAPAP organization, promotional literature for his various demos, and the interview in Israel Hayom. The first two sets are not independent and interviews generally aren't considered as meeting WP:GNG. He didn't found KAPAP and he's not even mentioned in the KAPAP article on WP (which is unsourced). He doesn't appear to meet any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Black Belt is the leading martial arts magazine and there is a full article about Nardia, that should enough for natability; Furthermore, Israel Hayom has an interview with him and it's a good source. Tzahy (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One source is not usually considered enough to show notability and, as I said above, interviews don't count towards notability since they are first party and non-independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources fail to establish notability of the subject Spiderone 16:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Kolma8 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything which would indicate they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Feakes

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as some sources amount to “substantial coverage” and not brief mentions. Moonraker (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – While I commend User:Hack's additions, the most significant depth articles are both from Chris Dutton of the The Canberra Times, and both are about the surprise that he found success in the US after he did not in Australia ("Canberra kids going to America for... rugby?" and " "Forgotten Canberra junior..."). The rest are WP:ROUTINE transaction coverage listing the clubs he has been a member of without depth or mentions in simple match recaps. He gets the most mentions as in a WP:PRIMARY coverage in a weekly award segment. Yosemiter (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the Canberra Times mentions are sufficient independent sources to scrape over the line for notability. Deus et lex (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deus et lex: Per WP:GNG: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. I do agree that subject is very borderline though, and much better than many of the other MLR players currently up for deletion. Yosemiter (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No solid reason has been given to justify the deletion of this content while valid alternatives exist. If he is not worthy of a standalone article this can be redirected somewhere. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duffbeerforme, please can you explain what the 'valid alternatives' would be, the player does not pass notability guidelines for rugby players at WP:NRU and whether or not he passes general notability guidelines at WP:GNG is certainly up for debate. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feakes is mentioned in New Orleans Gold, List of 2018–19 Major League Rugby transfers, 2019 Major League Rugby season‎. Pick the best target and redirect there. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is a redirect really suitable here, the player has only played a few games for NOLA Gold, and the other two are just list pages, its not as if he won player of the season or any awards in a that season either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a suitable redirect topic per WP:XY. Yosemiter (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ since subject comfortably passes criterion #1 of WP:NRU, which demands that the rugby union player must have played for a "high performance Union" at any time, while a footnote lists the countries whose unions are included in that category, amongst which is the U.S. Subject is a squad member of and has appeared playing for the New Orleans Gold who compete in the U.S. Major League Rugby. End of story. -The Gnome (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, This is incorrect, High Performance Union's relate to national teams not club sides. The player hasn't represented any international side, henceforth #1 is irrelevant. The issue is over #2 which relates to professional rugby competition (which New Orleans Gold plays in Major League Rugby). Major League Rugby isn't listed here, therefore the player doesn't qualify for WP:NRU. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rugbyfan22 is correct. I change my suggestion to Delete on account of subject failing indeed criterion #2 of WP:NRU. -The Gnome (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the SMH article actually is the best coverage I've seen of any US based rugby player, but it's not enough to make him notable - it's just a feature article on a curiosity, that an Aussie could be playing rugby in the US. None of the other coverage is significant, which is in line with our consistent showing that Major League Rugby does not get enough secondary independent reliable coverage to have articles on all of its players, and he's done nothing else that has earned GNG-qualifying coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 13:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jojo Tikoisuva

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article does need better referencing, but your attack seems to be on all Major League Rugby and not on individual articles. Moonraker (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. These players in my opinion do not qualify for WP:GNG along with WP:NRU as stated on my talk page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: Please refrain from casting aspersions about the nominator's intent unless you have evidence and keep your analysis to the article in question. "Artcle does need better referencing" is a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument, please show they exist. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yosemiter this is not a court, it is a discussion. The nominator has proposed a huge number of articles on rugby players for deletion and what links them all is that they have played in Major League Rugby. Moonraker (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, Again, this was because these players don't qualify for WP:NRU AND WP:GNG. There is very little coverage of the league and the players in the league, and so I have AfD'd the ones that I believe don't qualify. There have be many that I have found that don't qualify for WP:NRU but there is enough coverage to qualify for WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – This player actually does have one pretty good WP:GNG source Walker: For NOLA Gold's Jojo Tikoisuva, the game of rugby helped him beat the game of life in The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate. However, everything else is transaction WP:ROUTINE coverage with a basic synopsis listing clubs he has played with lacking depth or WP:RS. The player has made some lower tier national team appearances, if he is on a team that ever makes it to a larger stage, then the player may receive some significant coverage, but that would be WP:TOOSOON right now. Yosemiter (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Times-Picayune is a major regional paper and a longish-article about this one person is exactly what we want to establish notability. The article could certainly stand improving but that is not a reason to delete in this case. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: While that source is the reason I put "weak" in my !vote, WP:42 does explicitly state We need multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. I would prefer at least one more article like the Times-Picayune feature in my opinion (or at least a couple more independent WP:RS sources with significant coverage where he may not be the main topic). Yosemiter (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter:, remember that WP:42 is just a handy essay. Its usage of "significant" is only a suggestion and not definitive. In this particular case, a major metropolitan daily devoting >700 words to a profile of a player in a non-major sport is ...more than a trivial mention by any reasonable interpretation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Agreed that the single source is significant depth of coverage, but even WP:GNG, which is guideline and not an essay, says multiple sources are generally expected. If the one single independent RS source of good depth convinces you this subject meets GNG, then I do not think anything I would argue here would change your mind. It is not like I think this subject fails GNG with flying colors, just that it is on the lower side of the subjective line since it lacks the multiple part. Yosemiter (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There has been one good source we've found, but it doesn't mean he passes WP:GNG as there's no additional secondary independent coverage here. We don't create biographies on the basis that a local newspaper wrote a feature story on someone. SportingFlyer T·C 13:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my understanding of WP:GNG is that you need to have more than one good source Spiderone 15:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Light in the Dark (film)

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

Fails GNG, fails WP:NFO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as mentioned, it fails all 5 criteria of film notability guidelines. I only managed to find a few reviews online but they weren't by anyone notable. Additionally, I haven't managed to find much information about the film in general; the article is also lacking in details, reliable sources and information. Eyebeller (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I did add some reviews. I'm not terribly familiar with Nigeria sourcing, but I'm aware that not all of them are online and not all of the news sources have extremely polished sources. I don't mean that as an insult, just something that I've noticed about African news sources that aren't hugely major presses. It was also apparently one of the highest grossing Nigerian films of all time per this page and was one of the top 20 grossing movies for the weak of release, which implies that there are almost certainly more sources out there that aren't online. It's not a super solid keep, so I won't contest too hard if it's deleted. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are now enough secondary sources added to the article as described above for a pass of WP:GNG and it also has a major claim of significance as one of the highest grossing Nigerian films, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not sourcing, it's notability. The film, as Eyebeller points out above, fails NFO - the film notability guideline. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline, which provides a definition of notability applicable to any topic, is all about sources, so there's no distinction between the availability of suitable sources and notability. And WP:NFO is not the film notability guideline, but a guide to what to do with articles about films when it is difficult to find sources online that meet the GNG. If such sources have been found then NFO is irrelevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the rewrite, it doesn't seem to hold up to notability standards. It was the highest money-making film in the country for a week? Not sure that warrants a whole article, maybe a list somewhere with this film in it... Oaktree b (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: it is one of the highest grossing Nigerian films of all time as per the link provided by Reader of the Pack above, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After digging more on www.ceanigeria.com found that the movie did not make it on any top grossing movies list in 2019, about 11K ppl watched it first 4 wks after release in the theaters across Nigeria. There are only 19 IMDB ratings for the movie, which is very very weak, meaning the movie is not really that notable. Kolma8 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (I meant to delete, not relist) Missvain (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Katz

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as the sources are “substantial coverage”, viz. articles about Katz and not brief mentions. Article does need better referencing. Moonraker (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not such that the article can pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails to meet WP:GNG. No news hits under "Mo Katz" or "Timothy Katz". He gets mentioned in a few lists and WP:ROUTINE transaction reports, and they are mostly of the WP:PRIMARY or non-WP:RS variety. Yosemiter (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG pretty easily, sources aren't independent/reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 13:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only trivial/routine coverage available Spiderone 16:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to redirect of you wish. Missvain (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Turnbull

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Seems to me this article might be able to meet WP:GNG, as the sources are borderline “substantial coverage”. Better to add a refimprove tag here. Moonraker (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are not enough substantial sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources I've found are independent of the player's league or team, or are reliable (blog post). SportingFlyer T·C 14:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to be able to meet GNG Spiderone 12:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No solid reason has been given to justify the deletion of this content while valid alternatives exist. If he is not worthy of a standalone article this can be redirected somewhere. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duffbeerforme, please can you explain what the 'valid alternatives' would be, the player does not pass notability guidelines for rugby players at WP:NRU or general notability at WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turnball is mentioned in 2016 Denver Stampede season, Old Glory DC, Denver Stampede, 2016 PRO Rugby season, 2018 Major League Rugby season, List of 2019–20 Major League Rugby transfers. Pick the best target and redirect there. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how suitable any of those redirects are, he has spent short periods of time at all of the clubs (none you could consider the main from his career), and the other two are just list pages. Would a redirect really be suitable? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WHich in part is why stand alone articles are useful. All this content is verifiable. He has been covered in the press. Original research is not required to build this page. What seems to be a current push to delete suche verifiable content seems misguided. Why delete when you can cover in other ways. Played just one game? include in a list. Played for lots of teams? Redirect to a list for the most prominent team, mention the others. Pick the best alternative but no need to delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the person in question does not meet notability guidelines as per WP:GNG or WP:NRU then a article should not exist for that person and per Yosemiter below. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same as my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Taikato-Simpson, this is not a suitable redirect per WP:XY. Yosemiter (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to one of the articles duffbeerforme has suggested - he is spot on. Rugbyfan's claim that an article should not exist does not remove the requirement to consider alternatives to deletion if there is insufficient notability. Deus et lex (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deus et lex, as has been stated by myself and Yosemiter, redirects aren't suitable here due to WP:XY. There are no suitable redirects for this player as if in the very small chance someone was to search for Jake Turnbull, they may be looking for many different things. There is no stand out club from his career or season in which he won awards. Just because he is linked on the aforementioned pages does not mean there is a suitable redirect there. A more detailed discussion on this was held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Taikato-Simpson. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. That policy does not stop a suitable redirect from being found and duffbeerforme has found several. You're just opposed to anything that would thwart your proposal to delete this article. Deus et lex (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deus et lex, Let's go through the suggested redirects then. 2016 Denver Stampede season (1 season American pro league, link is to him being signed and in the squad, not really a suitable redirect), Old Glory DC (no longer linked to this page, guessing the link was to him in the squad, only made 5 appearances for them), Denver Stampede (Link is to him being in the squad, team no longer exists), 2016 PRO Rugby season (link is for him receiving a yellow card in one match, and joining the short-lived competition), 2018 Major League Rugby season (Link again to him receiving a yellow card in a game), List of 2019–20 Major League Rugby transfers (no longer linked to this page, guessing link was his transfer from one side to another). None of these are suitable redirects. I'm not saying there isn't a suitable redirect out there, but no suitable one has been provided and if one cannot be found I don't see another option is the consensus is for the page to be deleted. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already !voted delete, but none of the possible redirects are appropriate here in my opinion per WP:XY. SportingFlyer T·C 13:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Reid (rugby union)

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of player signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as the sources are “substantial coverage”, viz. articles about Reid and not brief mentions. Moonraker (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: Please provide evidence of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources per the requirements of WP:GNG. Making claims of WP:SOURCESEXIST needs to be supported in the AfD. Minimal transactional coverage in WP:ROUTINE sources are not typically considered to meet WP:GNG. Of the five sources currently listed: #1 is a mention in a list (not substantial), #2 is a routine transaction report with two paragraphs about the teams he has played for (and is on USA-specific rubgy site, run by and written by a single editor), #3 is primary, #4 is the same source as #2 (so it does not meet the multiple requirement) and half of it is a copy-n-paste from the primary press release as well as it being transaction coverage, and #5 (which seems to be a website that no longer exists, so I highly doubt it would meet WP:RS) is also transaction coverage. Essentially, the only thing verifiable in the current article about the subject is that they were a member of certain clubs, nothing substantial. Yosemiter (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yosemiter, the WP:GNG doesn’t say “multiple”, which is just as well, as the meaning would be debatable. It does use the plural “sources”, which seems to mean more than one, although hardly anyone seems to challenge notability if it comes from one major source. The word “typically” is vague, too. The question is simply whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. If you are suggesting the sources here are not reliable, do please say more. Moonraker (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: From GNG: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Yes, GNG is purposely meant to be slightly vague, but there is typically a consensus. Wikipedia is rarely explicit in its guidelines, that is why they are guidelines and not policies. I am simply explaining what is normally expected in an AfD for WP:BLP. Yosemiter (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fair enough, Yosemiter. What’s “generally expected” is clearly not essential, as made clear by “There is no fixed number of sources required...” I do not see any solid challenge to the reliability of the sources. You cannot dismiss a source because it is used twice, simply on the basis of a “multiple requirement” which is not there. Moonraker (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources in the article though look to qualify it for WP:GNG, as stated by Yosemiter signing articles are just WP:ROUTINE and very often aren't independent. Having looked through them and done a google search I can find no sources that are secondary and reliable, and the coverage that is there is far and a way NOT significant. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: Moonraker: You cannot dismiss a source because it is used twice. From GNG (continued): "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected...Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Yosemiter (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: on a second note, I am fairly certain I did challenge the sources provided in my first comment. Doug Coil is the main editor of DJ Coil, and the rest are mostly his own family, which probably does not meet WP:RS per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. He almost exclusively covers match results and transactions, which makes his page a good source for WP:V but not necessarily for WP:N. They do sometimes do player profiles, which would be more than ROUTINE, but I didn't see one here. I already talked about the other three listed sources: #1 mention, #3 primary, and #5 is the defunct site that was simply a copy-n-paste job of the primary press release as evidenced by the exact same statement in the DJCoil article. I have not otherwise done a WP:BEFORE, I am just pointing out the listed sources are probably not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my view as well Yosemiter, and hence why I have flagged large numbers of these articles for not qualifying for WP:GNG and WP:NRU, not just because they don't qualify for WP:NRU. Obviously all are on a case by case basis but I have been through the sources/searched for sources on all of them and the majority are from the same/similar sources as on this articfle. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now that I have done a more thorough source search, I am still not seeing anything other than transaction reports for this Michael Reid. Searches turned up very little in relation to the MLR member, although he was a bit mixed in with another Michael Reid that was in charge of Ulster Rugby for many years. If someone else can find better sources than those currently provided or that I could find in my own searches, then I would reconsider. Yosemiter (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the sources presented are either not independent or not significant. In particular, all independent sources are clearly those that are disqualified under WP:SPORTCRIT Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion... Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources available pass WP:GNG, which isn't a surprise given the other US based rugby players we've seen at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 13:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no evidence to suggest that Reid meets NRU or the wider biographical notability guidelines at WP:BASIC Spiderone 08:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to hash out a redirect now that he's red. Missvain (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Taikato-Simpson

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby, Italian Super 10 and Romanian leagues are not notable leagues under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as the sources are “substantial coverage”, viz. articles about Taikato-Simpson and not brief mentions. Moonraker (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG. Nothing but WP:ROUTINE transactions listing previous clubs lacking depth and brief mentions in match recaps. Yosemiter (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yosemiter and nom Spiderone 21:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No solid reason has been given to justify the deletion of this content while valid alternatives exist. If he is not worthy of a standalone article this can be redirected somewhere. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duffbeerforme, please can you explain what the 'valid alternatives' would be, the player does not pass notability guidelines for rugby players at WP:NRU or general notability at WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taikato-Simpson is mentioned in Old Glory DC, 2020 Major League Rugby season, List of 2019–20 Major League Rugby transfers. Pick the best target and redirect there. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those redirects really suitable though? He's played for multiple clubs for a short period of time making a small number of appearances at all of them. The other two are a list page and the season page where he didn't win any awards or scored most points/tries or similar. Not sure any are suitable. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which in part is why stand alone articles are useful. All this content is verifiable. He has been covered in the press. Original research is not required to build this page. What seems to be a current push to delete suche verifiable content seems misguided. Why delete when you can cover in other ways. Played just one game? include in a list. Played for lots of teams? Redirect to a list for the most prominent team, mention the others. Pick the best alternative but no need to delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: WP:V does not equal WP:N. Redirects are only suitable if the subject is actually discussed or mentioned on that page. If there are multiple possible targets for redirection, then it is not suitable for redirect per WP:XY. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of stats or roster transactions, verifiable or not. The subject must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Yosemiter (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said WP:V equals WP:N. "The subject must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (Tell yhat to the advocates of wp:prof.) To have a standalone article it is best to The subject must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. But the way you've said it seems to sufggest you think GNG overrides the SNGs. That is not the case. Directly qouting from the primary notability guide, "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;". Note Or'. It gives no precedence to gng. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG for this person is WP:NRU as he is a rugby union player. He fails that notability, as mentioned in the nomination. He fails both WP:SNG and WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? Read what I'm actually saying. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is not suitable redirect for this player due to WP:XY and the person fails both WP:SNG and WP:GNG meaning he is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I'm not entirely sure what your other argument is as he's not an academic. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He has played more games for Colorado Raptors than any other so a List of Raptors players article would be the best target. If it doesn't yet exist then a redirect to the team seem sensible pending the creation of a list article. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page doesn't exist, plus there's no indication that statement will remain true as he's left the team and the team no longer exists. He could make more appearances for another team in the future. Readers searching for Dylan Taikato-Simpson could be searching for anything (such as his spell in Italy or playing for the Australian Barbarians) so WP:XY is in effect here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: There actually is a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#SNG change about SNG vs GNG. But the short of it is: 8 out of 10 SNGs are written to in order meet GNG, including WP:NSPORTS (from NSPORTS: All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline). So yes, GNG outweighs the SNG for this subject right now. Yosemiter (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An ongoing discussion May change things but hasn't yet. NSPORT says "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." OR. No overriding there. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't take away from the fact that the player does not meet WP:SNG (under WP:NRU in this case as he's a rugby union player), or WP:GNG, why should this page be kept if he doesn't meet any of these notability requirements? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: What I quoted is from Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines and then further explained in Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basic criteria, which both expand on the brief intro you are pointing to. As to the ongoing discussion, it it mostly about making the phrasing in WP:N so SNGs should meet GNG, with some exceptions. No one is advocating for NSPORTS to be one of those exceptions, in fact, many think it should be more strict to GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: Also, you keep pointing to the OR in that sentence. This subject does NOT meet any of the SNGs, so GNG is the OR it needs to meet anyways. Yosemiter (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no significant coverage of this player, and I strongly disagree any alternatives to deletion exist here, as there's no blurb on him anywhere else on this website. SportingFlyer T·C 13:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Coglianese

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

Promotional article. WP:REFBOMBed, but no evidence of notability under WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG, despite talk page discussion. Fails to meet any of the prongs of WP:JOURNALIST. In a WP:BEFORE, no independent third-party sources found that are actually about the subject in sufficient detail for a BLP, rather than passing mentions or material by the subject. In the talk page discussion, the creator has failed to engage with the notability issues at all, lists extensive claims of notability-by-association, and added numerous sources to the article that didn't even mention the subject and broached multiple criteria of WP:REFBOMB. Even unreliable sources don't show a lot of mentions of "Vince Coglianese". Suggest deletion, or redirect to The Daily Caller. David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It does well look like an advertisement ~Cupper (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Purely promotional material does not include numerous verifiable, secondary sources, especially not those which are negative on the subject. Promotional material does not typically include a section on controversy the subject has caused. The editor who has tagged and retagged this article has been unnecessarily provocative throughout, without any indication he particular cares what changes are made to the article. Such provocation and tags have been responded to with information at the talk page and improvements/changes to the article as indicated. As the subject is not classified as a journalist, rather a radio talk show co-host, journalist notability requirements should not apply. As for general notability guidelines, the coverage is certainly significant from numerous reliable, secondary sources, independent of the subject. The subject is notable enough for the current U.S. president to sit with him (at least twice) for interviews to discuss policy, as well as high-ranking members of the president's cabinet. He is notable enough to be asked to appear on the Tucker Carlson show, which has risen to the most-watched on cable television, as well as other prominent news shows. He is notable enough to be asked to speak and appear on panels at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, and he is notable enough to be mentioned in the Heavy Hundred list of radio talk show hosts nationwide. His co-host, host who moved to afternoon from his timeslot, and host who comes in right after his show all have approved articles on Wikipedia. Other charges in the above paragraph are simply false and do not, for this reason, merit a response.--Artaxerxes (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The claims above are belied by reading the talk page discussion. If WP:JOURNALIST is not appropriate, then he needs to meet WP:GNG - but, per talk, he doesn't do that either. Rather than attacking another editor, you need to find independent third-party sources found that are actually about the subject in sufficient detail for a BLP, and clearly demonstrate notability. This is not a complicated criterion - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So he's the co-host of a local radio program for the last three years? Not at all notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 FK Sukthi season

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

The third tier of Albanian football is not covered by WP:NSEASONS. Rare exceptions can be made if the subject clearly passes WP:GNG. I'm not seeing that here. Spiderone 21:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 21:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The season fails WP:NSEASONS. But the info here is quite useful so this should be merged to FK Sukthi. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which bits of info should be retained? Spiderone 22:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the whole article currently is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS and also WP:NOTMIRROR as it's just a mirror of the single primary source, which is Albanian Football Association Spiderone 16:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article isn't complete and even if it was, I can't see how this would pass WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 12:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Smith (American actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

The article last survived AfD in 2008, where the issue was neutrality issues. Since then, the issue has become less a lack of neutrality and more a crippling lack of usable sources, with Google being absolutely no help (strings: "Justin smith" american actor, "justin smith" actor man down, "justin smith" actor a good day to die hard, "justin smith" actor burn notice) due to hits in both general and news searches being unreliable or non-responsive, some of them being about Justice Smith instead. The article has never had particularly good sourcing (almost all IMDb, production companies, and/or Wikipedia), and at this point is non-compliant with BLP. BLPProd attempted and declined with the rationale that sources are in external links (said sources being the subject's own website and IMDb). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 19:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject's own website and IMDb are never enough to justify any article. We have a broken project because we failed to have even semi-reasonable notability standards in 2008.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal opinion on the status of the project is not relevant to this AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a random actor who does not meet standards for a WP:BLP. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally I would close as "delete" with 3 unanimous !votes to "delete" after a week, but since it's survived AfD before I am relisting to give more opportunity for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too promotional. He's been in movies, but how important were his parts? I can't see enough info from the article to prove notability. No citations only hurts the nomination. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Happy to draftify if someone wants it. Let me know. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Korpilampi

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD and BEFORE showed nothing that meets RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article provides no indication of notability. // Timothy :: talk 18:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 18:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 18:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article in Finnish seems to have some sources? I don't read Finnish though. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll give it a go. Korpilampi is a bit of an iconic one, there should be decent enough references (in addition to whatever the Finnish wiki has). I agree, though, that as it stands, the article does make a poor fist of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was already half way into improving and expanding the article, when my browser crashed and I seem to have lost the work irretrievably. :( That said, I did discover that finding decent sources wasn't quite as easy as I first thought, so I might just have to let this one go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of references on the Finnish page - have these been looked at? SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are dead. I only found one good article on the hotel that wasn't a directory listing, but it has an important place in Finnish political history, so may well be notable if Finnish archives are searched. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - there's fair reason to believe that this topic is notable but the article does not demonstrate that at all. I would suggest sending to draft space so that a user with good experience of using Finnish sources can work on it Spiderone 08:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If this does get draftified (or kept), I undertake to add whatever decent sources I could find, and generally rework it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only hint of significant coverage I was able to find is about events taking place at this venue, not about the hotel itself. I don't think there's ever been a consensus that venues WP:INHERIT notability from notable events held there. The remaining coverage is simply what you'd expect for any hotel (booking sites, etc.) Draftifying is only appropriate if there is a reasonable likelihood of improvement which I don't see here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and no significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a borderline case and, despite being re-listed thrice, no consensus either way has emerged after a month of discussion. JGHowes ^talk 03:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1 Cabot Square

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

A nice, normal, average building. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and the article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 19:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep, maybe merge but certainly don't delete. The Credit Suisse building isn't "a nice, normal, average building", it's one of the seven original buildings of Canary Wharf which is probably the most significant 20th-century structure in the UK. (Canary Wharf isn't just a routine commercial development; it's the hub of the global banking system, and is single-handedly responsible for the shift in London's economic and commercial centre eastwards from the City and Westminster, and consequently for the creation of London City Airport, the 2012 Olympics, the Elizabeth Line, the O2, Westfield, ExCel, the DLR…) There's an argument to be made that it might make more sense for the individual buildings to be covered at Canary Wharf rather than as stand-alone pages, but that would probably make the already-long parent article unmanageably large. ‑ Iridescent 10:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I tend to agree with Iridescent. WP:BEFORE should involve some sort of examination of contemporary sources. Canary Wharf was one of the most major redevelopments of London and I believe 1 Cabot Square was the second tallest building in the first phase of this. However, I notice not even Pei Cobb Freed & Partners mention it on their website and, like much architecture in that area 1 Cabot Square seems unremarkable form an architectural point of view. There is scope for it to be merged to the Cabot Square article and summarised at Canary Wharf, at worst. Sionk (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At worst this is a merge - the building was discussed in newspapers.com a couple times which is mostly North American+SMH+The Age+some Canada but not significantly, so struck out on contemporary coverage, but I'd be surprised if a search of English newspapers from the early 1990s wouldn't lead to GNG-qualifying coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 18:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the key here is that the decision doesn't just reflect this one article but the whole development. There are a fair number of buildings on Canary Wharf which have articles, some arguably less notable than 1 Cabot Circus, but all of which include meaningful content which should not be lost. Ian3055 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above commnents. Appears to pass WP:GNG Artw (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: none of the keep votes above mention IS RS with SIGCOV. Notability is not inherited from surroundings. // Timothy :: talk 10:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't see how this building meets notability criteria under buildings, organizations & companies or architecture. There are few citations about anything other than the transfers of ownership of this building. Duncan079 (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan079, this is your seventh edit on the site and yet you show some good knowledge of our notability criteria - may I ask if you've participated in one of these discussions before? SportingFlyer T·C 23:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wajid Khan (artist)

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

absurdly promotional article with a great many PR references, about half of them to name-dropping. The contributor's only other contribution was a declined draft which is now been continued by another paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Fails WP:NARTIST, but artists have high notability. ~Cupper (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absurdly promotional indeed, sourcing is ripe with SEO spam. Even if he were to pass NARTIST, this article is beyond repair. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced. Have done some editing of the page for Wikipedia style and to tone down the excess promotion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I have an issue with phrases like "at the age of 14 he invented the world's smallest electric iron" and "he went on to invent a water theft device." Poorly written article that seems more as promotional. Kolma8 (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a borderline work of madness. Sourcing is suspect, marginal, PR-led. 'Most nails used for a portrait'? Oh, my... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is astonishing what the Times of India and The Hindu will publish. They'll really print anything. There is, of course, an artist who really IS known for his nail art, Günther Uecker. Vexations (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly written article that is blatantly promotional. It has so much unnecessary information that if all that information was removed, it would be much too short to merit its own article. Coreykai (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article has been relisted 3 times and no consensus was reached. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Lembke

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

Alleged to be a G11 article, listing for community input on its fate. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I personally can't see anything that would speak for G11. From my point of view, it is a completely normal, neutral written article about an encyclopaedically relevant person with media reception and publications. The G11 speedy deletion tag was added with no reason and I assume that if a valid reason had been given, we would not need to discuss here.--Maxeto0910 (Talk) 21:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It alleges notability, but the sourcing is quite weak. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NAUTHOR, albeit in German. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as this article is almost a word by word copy of the German WP article, see here, i have added a translation tag on its talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, multiple editions of Lembke's thesis is held in around 20 German libraries, see here, contributing to wikinotability(?) Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Molly (band)

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

Non-notable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Swedish band. There are no sources, just external links - the band's website and myspace page which do not provide notability. There is no article about them on the Swedish WP. We don't even know if they are still active or not. Though the first sentence of the article is the following: "Molly was a Swedish band...", but the infobox states "1989-?" so it's unknown if they have split up or not. But it's most likely they did, as they haven't seem to made any waves whatsoever. At least I haven't found anything about them. Their name makes searching difficult, so I looked up their albums. All I found were some retail sites, youtube videos and one album review on a blog. That's it. The rest of the results are the words separately. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have two full albums on a well-known indie label. That should be enough to establish notability. // Liftarn (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liftarn: In part, yes. But the sourcing is more important. And that is abysmal, and I couldn't find any reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, feel free to change the tagging to {{refimprove}} then. // Liftarn (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liftarn: Okay, but I have not found any reliable sources. If I would just tag it with {{refimprove}}, the article would still sit here without any reliable references. I know that since I have seen a lot of band articles in that state. That's why I brought this band to AfD, to see whether anyone else has found any RS. If there are reliable sources, I just put them in and we're done. Notability is proven. Tagging with {{refimprove}} does not have that much an effect, like I said, I have seen band articles that has been tagged as such for 5-10, maybe 12 years now. And as of now, it hasn't been changed. I can't name you any examples since there are lots of band articles on WP. Okay, I can tell you one. A few months ago I nominated the article of the band Satariel for deletion. It has been tagged with refimprove since 2008. The sourcing was abysmal in that one as well, and I could barely find any RS. But then, thanks to the AfD, notability was finally proven thanks to reliable sources. So that's why I prefer to bring potentially non-notable stuff to Afd instead of just tagging it with refimprove. We can talk about it here whether it's notable or not. I don't necessarily want the article to be deleted, just to talk about whether it's notable or not. Regards, GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I have started, but with a band name like that googling is a bit difficult. // Liftarn (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liftarn: Yeah, I have mentioned that too. They have a simple name, so searching "molly band" will result in lots of different stuff. That's why I also included the titles of their albums during a search, to specify I am looking for the Swedish band. And all I found the things I already mentioned above. And they are not reliable. Regards, GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did find some in SMDB that should be reliable. And a review of Raj Raj from the magazine Terrorpop. // Liftarn (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liftarn: I have never heard of any of these magazines. Google search did not return them either. Can you please post them here? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMDB is not a magazine, but a media catalogue at the National Library of Sweden. It's used to show that Molly did indeed got published by Sista bussen and thus are notable according to Wikipedia standards. Terrorpop was a Swedish music magazine in the 90s.[68] Some articles are online at http://www.blaskoteket.se/tidningar/terrorpop/ Others can be bought, [69][70][71] // Liftarn (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They sound reliable (especially the first one). I will take a look. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are just shop links where you can buy this magazine. Can you please post the articles that talk about Molly specifically? Thank you. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the article, but http://www.blaskoteket.se/artiklar/terrorpop/nr-03-1994/molly-raj-raj/ // Liftarn (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have already found this (during a Google search)! That's what I dismissed as an "album review on a blog". I had no idea Terrorpop was a magazine. The name of the magazine, its look and feel, and the style of the review made me think it's a blog or fanzine. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a magazine, but the blog republishes some of the articles. // Liftarn (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what about SMDB? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMDB (Svensk mediadatabas) is "a search service for the audiovisual collections at the National Library of Sweden (KB). The database contains information about TV, radio, video, movies presented in theaters, CDs, and multimedia.". I considered it a reliable source to show that Molly had their two albums released on an important indie label so they fulfil the requirements of WP:BAND. ("Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).". // Liftarn (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Although I have never heard of "Sista Bussen", that doesn't count for anything since according to the article they have been around since 1978. There are no reliable sources in that article either, might I add, just the official site of the label. The svwiki article doesn't even contain that. So I must admit I have doubts about that label's notability too. But google might return something, who knows, maybe there are reliable sources about the label. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defines an important indie label as "a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". Sista bussen has been around since 1978 so that's more than a few years and they have published Freddie Wadling, Köttgrottorna, Gudibrallan, Stefan Sundström, Leather Nun and so on so they fulfil the second requirement as well. Btw, it feels like you're moving the goalposts. // Liftarn (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I am moving the goalposts"? What's that supposed to mean? Sorry, I'm Hungarian, I don't know the meaning of every phrase. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first you asked for sources for Molly being notable and when I gave them you switched to asking for sources that Sista bussen is notable. Moving the goalposts // Liftarn (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not much consensus here so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability per Wikipedia guidelines (WP:BAND) established by reliable sources ("Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels"). Sista Bussen is an important indie label according to Wikipedia standards ("label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable"). // Liftarn (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To the contrary, none of the sources in the article nor the extensive discussion above demonstrate notability under either the WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Thank you! Finally! I was right about this band being non-notable!

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable according to Wikipedia rules. It's not the same as you need to have heard of it. // Liftarn (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! I don't base an AfD on the reason "I have never heard of it". I'm just saying it but it's not my primary reason! That would be stupid! This band may be popular or known in the underground, but it's not notable for WP! End of story! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the only argument you have left. I have conclusively proven that they are notable per WP:BAND and that you don't like it is is little relevance. // Liftarn (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think it would be time to close this. Whether it stays or not, it has been sitting here since Nov 7. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it fails WP:MUSICBIO Samat lib (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. It fulfils point 5. // Liftarn (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liftarn:, how so? Making claims that an article subject fits some notability criteria should be supported by evidence. The albums in the article are circular links so that doesn't show evidence of ... two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels... Searching on Discogs shows that the two albums were released by Sista Bussen, and your article on that label itself shows notability issues. The definition of "one of the more important indie labels" includes having promoted well-known acts and of the nine bands you listed for Sista Bussen, only four are blue links and only one seems to have released a significant portion of their work on Sista Bussen. The claim of released two or more albums on a significant label is not sustained by the evidence available. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND says what is judged as notability ("Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels"). Sista Bussen is an important indie label according to Wikipedia standards ("label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable"). So we have established that Molly is a notable band. Now the goalposts have moved. I have given reliable sources for that Molly indeed are published by Sista Bussen (for instance SMDB, Svensk mediedatabas). // Liftarn (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liftarn:, you are claiming moving goalposts when they are in exactly the same place. Look again. I quoted the exact same standard and explained that in no way, shape, or form, has it been demonstrated that Sista Bussen is an important indie label. I even stated that I found independently Sista Bussen as the record label. Sista Bussen shows no sign of being a qualifying label under WP:BAND. You have time and time again claimed to have "established" Molly's notability when you have failed to back that claim up with evidence. Every editor who creates an article is naturally defensive when that article is nominated for deletion but please at least try to read and respond to what is actually being stated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of Molly is established per WP:BAND ("Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels"). Now the goalposts have moved on to target Sista Bussen instead. Sista Bussen is notable as well ("label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable") so now the goalpost have moved to that there isn't enough sourcing for Sista Bussen. So what started out as a notability issue for a band is now a question about reliable sources for a label. That's what I call moving goalposts. // Liftarn (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kuwait Medical Association. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait Medical Professionals

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

GHits are not a usable metrics due to information about medical professionals in or needed in Kuwait, but no evidence this is a notable organization, nor are its constituent organizations save for one. StarM 03:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:N. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the very small content into Kuwait Medical Association. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per User:Rathfelder. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Spudlace (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like a very reasonable and fair WP:ATD Spiderone 16:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alico, California

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

Actually the site of a mining spur: searching turned up a reference to "the old railroad siding of Alico" and another reference to Alico as a name for the California Alkali Co. Topos and aerials show no structures at the site; there's no evidence for an actual settlement, though one reference claims a mining camp. Mangoe (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Searching newspapers.com for "Alico Inyo" was not fruitful in part because "Alice" seems to sometimes scan as "Alico". GBooks has references for Alico being a railroad station, so WP:STATION applies. As this location was never legally recognized and has almost no coverage, trivial or not, #1 and #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met. Cxbrx (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; clearly never a settlement Spiderone 14:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will rename CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In League with Satan / Live Like an Angel

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

Does not seem to be a notable work. Sources are weak or passing mentions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is full of fancruft that can be removed, and the authors used the wrong sources. It may also be a mistake to focus on the two-sided single release, as the A-side "In League with Satan" has all the history. But that song is notable as a separate non-album release, especially for kicking off decades of moral panic about supposed Satanism in metal music. This song, and complaints about it, are abundant in books on the history of heavy metal, books written by moralists who are scared of metal, books about Satanism, and books about the controversy. See this Google Books search: [72] with several pages of relevant results. The article can be kept but refocused on the historical (ahem) influence of "In League with Satan". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You wrote keep but your argument appears to be that it should be deleted and to delete the fan cruft, focus on the one song. That would also imply that it be moved to a new location to focus on the new subject. Wouldn't it just make sense to delete and create a new article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, just improve it through standard editing then possibly move it to a simplified title. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to In League with Satan: Per Doomsdayer520. Though the article needs some clean up, it's good enough to pass WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable how outside of the existing article for Venom and articles for their albums? Created by SPA. While we're at it Bloodlust (Venom song) by same SPA needs to go, too. Not individually notable. See WP:NSINGLE Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful with SPA accusations, as the person behind the Venom articles is simply making use of his own knowledge, but maybe a little too enthusiastically with the fan trivia. And just because this person sticks to Venom articles, the articles are not non-notable just for that reason. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with both in part. An SPA may not be editing for money or out of self-interest, but that doesn't mean that they have a clear understanding of the community's goals. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - SPA = no contribution to WP whatsoever outside a single topic. I made no reference to motivation! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename, per the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goof Gas Attack

AfDs for this article:

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

Originally nominated for PROD by @Piotrus with the reason "Unreferenced article about a TV show's story arc. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." FASTILY 00:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be a brief mention in a Rocky and Bullwinkle article at best. Oaktree b (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see why we need an AfD for this given no objections to deletion (both AfD and PROD) of similar articles from Template:The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends, but sure, we can have one more check here. Delete per my previous rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PROD can't be used to delete articles which have previously been at AfD, hence this procedural nomination. -FASTILY 02:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per excellent reasoning of Piotrus in this case Spiderone 10:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The content of this article, and most of the others covering individual story arcs in the series, would likely be better suited to a summary episode list (which, unusually, this series does not yet have). Notability/sourcing issues aside, having a full article for each storyline would also arguably fall into the realm of excessive detail. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was deleted before as not needed (well unless it was a different article with the same name, which is possible), there is no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing this early (or at least early for the latest relist) to hopefully put an end to ongoing disruption related to this series of articles. Agreement seems to have been reached that there are already three separate articles – Mohun Bagan A.C. and ATK (football club) for the original clubs and ATK Mohun Bagan FC for the merged club – and that this is a copy/paste duplicate. Number 5 7 19:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohun Bagan

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

This page is clone page of an already existing protected page with proper templates and information. So it is preferable to delete this page to prevent misguidance.Debankan Mullick (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Mohun Bagan A.C.. Giant Snowman 21:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the ATK-Mohun Bagan merged club technically different than Mohun Bagan A.C., MLS-style? SportingFlyer T·C 21:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is an entirely different club legally, yes. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be two articles, then. SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reopen that discussion but this has been done many, many times and most times doesn't get many responses beyond GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) and Mohun Bagan fans who don't want a separate page. The conversations eventually result in "no consensus". Reason I have taken a break recently. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have said multiple times that there should be three separate articles, on the two old clubs and the new merged club. This is standard - see Dagenham F.C. + Redbridge Forest F.C. = Dagenham & Redbridge F.C. as one example. However, this AFD is not the place for such a discussion I don't think. Giant Snowman 09:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? We now have three articles, and the FC Cincinnati argument played out over AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: admittedly I am not up to speed on the club(s) involed, but (as far as I can see) we currently have three separate articles, which seems to be what you think we should have, but above you have !voted to turn one into a redirect to another, which would leave us with only two articles. Am I misunderstanding.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude and SportingFlyer: because this is somebody overwriting a long established redirect to one of the old articles. The new entity is called ATK Mohun Bagan / ATK Mohun Bagan F.C. and any new article needs to be located there. Giant Snowman 12:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense - I hadn't checked the history of the article under discussion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can just restore the previous versions of ATK Mohun Bagan FC. This article under discussion is inappropriately copy-pasted from the ATK Mohun Bagan FC. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 06:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be the correct answer here. SportingFlyer T·C 07:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The merged club is different than the old club, so three articles are warranted in this case, though we may need to move the title once this is finished. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Its no doubt/confusion that MB = MBAC and not to be confused with ATKMB. Its commonly called mohun bagan instead of mb athletic club. So, revert it to previous revision where it was a redirect. Bringing ATKMB here is totally unnecessary, and it should have a separate discussion. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 06:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an inappropriate copy-paste, Restore ATK Mohun Bagan FC from a redirect to an article, and then Redirect to ATK Mohun Bagan FC. It's admittedly a bit confusing, but this seems to be the correct answer, as this page has been created due to an edit war at that article resulting from a really poor merge discussion back in September. This AfD would overturn that merge discussion, but I strongly believe this is the correct answer, having read the discussions on the Mohun Bagan A.C talk page, and not having any vested interest in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 07:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep all the information of the page. But change the title "Mohun Bagan" to "ATK Mohun Bagan" to resolve the ambiguity.

1. To resolve this ambiguity, please take all the information from here and paste that in the page 'ATK Mohun Bagan, which is now a redirected page. And remove the redirected tag from the "ATK Mohun Bagan" Page.

2. Redirect this page to Mohun Bagan AC page. This is because this page titled as "Mohun Bagan", was created in 22 May, 2005, but the new team ATK Mohun Bagan created in 1 June, 2020.(This may create ambiguity in future) Please do the above mentioned procedure as soon as possible to resolve the ambiguity. 171.51.131.53 (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SportingFlyer, this discussion, like always will be floated by fans of a rival club namely Shree Cement East Bengal. Like always, users like Arsenalfan and Saha will come up with excuses of it being a new entity altogether. Despite so many discussions, they seem to never learn and will always be bothered about Mohun Bagan's articles instead of Shree Cement's articles. There is no point of discussing if you have so many biased rival fans here. IAmPushpak (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note A few minutes ago, an editor moved the page from Mohun Bagan to Draft:ATK Mohun Bagan Football Club. I have asked the editor to undo the move until either this discussion closes or there is a consensus to allow the move in the middle of the discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Theshouvik has not done so already, I have reverted the move. There is a copy-and-paste of this at ATK Mohun Bagan Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which I will revert back to its most recent redirect version shortly. These reversions are purely procedural, had this AFD not been open, I probably wouldn't have done anything. Editor notified. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an inappropriate copy-paste and Restore redirect to Mohun Bagan A.C.— Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral notice: Information which may be relevant to this discussion has been added to one or more of the following talk pages since this AFD started: Talk:Mohun Bagan, Talk:ATK Mohun Bagan FC, and Talk:Mohun Bagan A.C.. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Locked redirect with history to ATK Mohun Bagan FC (I'm okay with Mohun Bagan AC as a 2nd choice). THere is some history that could be used to improve ATK Mohun Bagan FC or, should the editors of that page later decide to split off the "historical" team, use for a "new" page about the "old" team. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inappropriate copy-paste of Mohun Bagan AC.ThanksWhiteFalcon1 (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inappropriate copy-paste of Mohun Bagan AC and as we have already reached consensus that it is the continuation of Mohun Bagan club Debarghya89 (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true - it's pretty clear ATK Mohun Bagan is a new entity from the references on the talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we already have Mohun Bagan A.C. for the club, ATK (football club) for the old ATK club and are likely to end up with ATK Mohun Bagan FC for the new entity for the merged club. Don't require this one as well. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[:2-1] "WEDDINGS; Evan Ryan, Antony Blinken". The New York Times. March 3, 2002. Archived from the original on December 7, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2013.

[twp-2] Cite error: The named reference twp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[3] Kaplan, Allison (2020-11-22). "Long-time Biden aide Blinken most likely choice for secretary of state". Haaretz. Archived from the original on November 24, 2020. Retrieved 2020-11-24.

[academic_consensus-4] Sources:
Quataert 2006, p. 251. "Indeed, as I state in the second edition, accumulating evidence is indicating that the killings were centrally planned by Ottoman government officials and systematically carried out by their underlings."

Gutman 2015, p. 177. "Recent developments including the publication of several studies in the Turkish language, however, suggest that such efforts to cast doubt on the genocidal dimensions of the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians are becoming increasingly untenable".

Suny 2015, pp. 373–374. "One hundred years after the Young Turk government decided to deport and massacre hundreds of thousands of Armenians and Assyrians, the controversies over the Genocide still rage, but the balance has shifted dramatically and conclusively toward the view that the Ottoman government conceived, initiated, and implemented deliberate acts of ethnic cleansing and mass murder targeted at specific ethnoreligious communities."

Hovannisian 2015, p. 244. "The vast majority of genocide scholars and their organizations worldwide are steadfast not only in their recognition of the Armenian Genocide but also in calling upon others, including the Turkish government, to acknowledge the historical reality and help pave the way toward eventual conciliation."

Laycock, Jo (2016). "The great catastrophe". Patterns of Prejudice. 50 (3): 311–313. doi:10.1080/0031322X.2016.1195548. S2CID 147933878. important developments in the historical research on the genocide over the last fifteen years... have left no room for doubt that the treatment of the Ottoman Armenians constituted genocide according to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide

"Taner Akçam: Türkiye'nin, soykırım konusunda her bakımdan izole olduğunu söyleyebiliriz". CivilNet (in Turkish). 9 July 2020. Retrieved 19 December 2020. Artık Türkiye'nin tezlerini ne akademik dünyada ne de siyasi düzeyde ciddiye alan kaldı. Bundan 5-10 yıl önce, akademik dünyada "konunun iki taraf var ve bu iki taraf farklı görüşlere sahip, o halde taraflara eşit mesafede durmalı ve görüşlerine saygı göstermeliyiz" gibi bir fikir taraftar bulabiliyordu. Ama artık böyle düşünen hemen hemen kalmadı. Akademilerde, Türk Hükümetinin tezleri sıradan inkârcı bir görüş muamelesi görüyor ve ciddiye alınmıyor. Siyasi düzeyde de benzeri bir gelişme yaşandı. Türkiye en önemli kalesini, Amerikan Kongresini kaybetti. Batı'da Ermeni soykırımını kabul etmeyen ülke kalmadı gibi. Hatta İslam ülkeleri de soykırımı kabul etmeye başladılar.

[5] Quataert 2006, p. 251. "Indeed, as I state in the second edition, accumulating evidence is indicating that the killings were centrally planned by Ottoman government officials and systematically carried out by their underlings."

[6] Gutman 2015, p. 177. "Recent developments including the publication of several studies in the Turkish language, however, suggest that such efforts to cast doubt on the genocidal dimensions of the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians are becoming increasingly untenable".

[7] Suny 2015, pp. 373–374. "One hundred years after the Young Turk government decided to deport and massacre hundreds of thousands of Armenians and Assyrians, the controversies over the Genocide still rage, but the balance has shifted dramatically and conclusively toward the view that the Ottoman government conceived, initiated, and implemented deliberate acts of ethnic cleansing and mass murder targeted at specific ethnoreligious communities."

[8] Hovannisian 2015, p. 244. "The vast majority of genocide scholars and their organizations worldwide are steadfast not only in their recognition of the Armenian Genocide but also in calling upon others, including the Turkish government, to acknowledge the historical reality and help pave the way toward eventual conciliation."

[9] Laycock, Jo (2016). "The great catastrophe". Patterns of Prejudice. 50 (3): 311–313. doi:10.1080/0031322X.2016.1195548. S2CID 147933878. important developments in the historical research on the genocide over the last fifteen years... have left no room for doubt that the treatment of the Ottoman Armenians constituted genocide according to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide

[10] "Taner Akçam: Türkiye'nin, soykırım konusunda her bakımdan izole olduğunu söyleyebiliriz". CivilNet (in Turkish). 9 July 2020. Retrieved 19 December 2020. Artık Türkiye'nin tezlerini ne akademik dünyada ne de siyasi düzeyde ciddiye alan kaldı. Bundan 5-10 yıl önce, akademik dünyada "konunun iki taraf var ve bu iki taraf farklı görüşlere sahip, o halde taraflara eşit mesafede durmalı ve görüşlerine saygı göstermeliyiz" gibi bir fikir taraftar bulabiliyordu. Ama artık böyle düşünen hemen hemen kalmadı. Akademilerde, Türk Hükümetinin tezleri sıradan inkârcı bir görüş muamelesi görüyor ve ciddiye alınmıyor. Siyasi düzeyde de benzeri bir gelişme yaşandı. Türkiye en önemli kalesini, Amerikan Kongresini kaybetti. Batı'da Ermeni soykırımını kabul etmeyen ülke kalmadı gibi. Hatta İslam ülkeleri de soykırımı kabul etmeye başladılar.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]