Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 16	December 18 >

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) 01:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nedim Dedić[edit]

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

BLP of a data scientist with what looks to me like a pretty low Google Scholar count and not much else to support notability. I don’t think this passes WP:PROF. Mccapra (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tiny GS cites indicate little impact on his field yet. Try again in ten years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete- as per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations not good enough in a high-citation field. Being a keynote speaker is suggestive, but not cause for notability itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that the citations are low, but not only that there is also not significant news coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per Nom. does not satisfy WP:PROF. Alex-h (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom it may be WP:TOOSOON Spudlace (talk) 07:47, 24 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. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudotheorem[edit]

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

Unsourced; WP:OR.

Apparently, the author call "pseudotheorem" a theorem that suggests a conjecture that can be disproved by further computation, and asserts that such a theorem is not really a theorem. This is definitely silly, D.Lazard (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Google Scholar has about 20 hits for "pseudotheorem" but they do not appear to be using the word in a consistent way, or in the way described in this article. (The only one of these hits with any heft in metamathematics is Harvey Friedman's "The incompleteness phenomena" which definitely uses it in a different sense, near the end of section 6, for a statement that is false but can be made true with additional qualifiers.) The article is completely lacking in published reliable sources (the MathWorld link is only of dubious reliability, but more importantly, never uses the term pseudotheorem). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a widespread term with a consistent definition. Honestly, this is verging on "stuff made up one day" territory. Yes, mathematicians do care about patterns that eventually fail, but statements about them are not called "pseudotheorems". XOR'easter (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the term is used, it is not in the sense that is indicated in this article. Ultimately this is poorly sourced and reeks of original research. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essays sourced to a single, sketchy source are probably original research. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 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. Missvain (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Pardashunas[edit]

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

A BLP on an entrepreneur that does not pass WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. The 8 references provided in the article are all passing mentions, in fact, some of them don't mention Pardashunas at all. He gets barely hits on Google News or here. There is this source which looks like it might help with establishing notability but I have no idea whether it is a reliable source or not and I could find little else. Spiderone 21:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Qaynarinfo.az is quite a reliable source, yes I agree he's not mentioned much in google news, however he's a well-known tech journalist in Azerbaijan, and it would be better to keep this page active so that international tech companies and other entrepreneurs could search for their peers in Azerbaijan. Also, the community of Azerbaijani wikipedia deleted his page using their power of abuse. The user below claims about strong delete is one of them. I would suggest to protect this page until this conflict between admins and the person has been solved.

--1elvinn (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: The article obviously doesn't meet simple notability criterias. A renown journalist should at least have a couple reliable links/references to cite. The links provided in the article don't thoroughly cover information about the person, just mention their name. About Qaynarinfo.az, it's obvious the website cannot be a primary reference (full of ads, lack of neutrality), as there're articles about literally thousands of people there.
On a side note, i think, we also have to take into consideration the fact that the article has been repeatedly deleted from Azerbaijani Wikipedia after a simple nomination for deletion, and the article namespace is currently protected. It may be off-topic, but it caused a drama on social media, when the person in the article started to insult Azerbaijani Wikipedia and its community, which ultimately led to the creation of this article on English Wikipedia just to prove that the person a notable journalist. Cheers, Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 01:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep known journalist, I met him at Cannes lions. he's a tech journalist, not some movie star or political figure. Why do you expect him to be mentioned a lot in google news? I know he has a small youtube ch, tech news website. Lindavf (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)— Lindavf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The issue being discussed is not whether he exists (of which I have no doubt), but whether he meets the WP:GNG requirements of significant, independent, reliable coverage. He does not. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanity page. No hits in Google news, no WP:RS that I can find. Many of the citations beefing up the article are off-topic. As to 1elvinn's keep !vote, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, and the source mentioned is dependent because it's an interview with him. FalconK (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.124.65 (talk) 10:01, 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keisha Grey[edit]

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

This is a BLP that is inadequately sourced and lacks the sustained meaningful coverage needed. Essentially what we have is clickbait, non-notzble list, unreliable adult press, interviews (primary sources) and award announcements. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete another in a long line of non-notable pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find some mainstream media coverage about Grey. She has been named one of the most "popular adult film stars" and that received a little traction, but, it's a mention paragraph - one source is in the article and the other is paywalled here from Fortune. She was featured on Jimmy Kimmel reading a mean tweet (a popular feature has has on his show), and she was interviewed in one paragraph about "interracial porn" in Daily Beast. The rest are mere mentions about the death of a fellow adult film star or non-reliable sources from the porn industry. While I'm all about rewriting and revamping (no pun intended) porn bios, this one is not even able to make it past WP:BASIC on my end. Missvain (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:21, 25 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abella Danger[edit]

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

This is a BLP that lacks proper sourcing thst basically comprises clickbait, interviews, proper sources not actually mentioning her and award announcements. Has not been reviewed since pornbio was depreceated and this looks ripe for consideration under a more realistic standard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete While she is in fact a notable pornographic film actress, I’ve been pro-deleting this article for a year now because there simply aren’t adequate sources for it. Maybe that will change in the future but for now, not at all. I try to reject the Wiki-wide belief system that just because someone is in pornography that tabloids become accpetable to use. Nope. Rules are rules. Trillfendi (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough reliable, 3rd-party, indepdent secondary sourcing that covers her signifcantly enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep She is a notable adult film star and there are sources that can help establish her notability, however, I don't really consider it enough to convince me for a strong keep. Here are the non-porn-centric sources I found:

“Abella Danger on Porn Shaming, Faux Feminism and Kanye” from ‘’Paper (magazine)’’
“Porn Star Abella Danger Apologizes For Mia Khalifa Twitter Spat” from ‘’International Business Times’’
“Porn Star Abella Danger Apologises For Mia Khalifa Comments While Defending Industry” from UNILAD
“Bella Thorne Taught Abella Danger 'A Lot' on the Set of Her PornHub Movie” from MovieWeb
“Kiss kiss bang bang with porn star Abella Danger” from SSENSE - It’s an interview and yes it’s from a company.

The following can also help build WP:BASIC

“Spend a Day at the Beach with Abella Danger” from ‘’Paper (magazine)’’
“Porn Star Abella Danger ‘Learned a Lot’ From Bella Thorne On Set of ‘Her & Him,’ Her PornHub Directorial Debut” from ‘’In Touch Weekly’’ (gossipy publication but it’s a feature interview with her and it’s not as horrendous as say, Mirror)
“As Miami Beach Pride Nears, Native Youth Opens Up About Her Sexuality” from ‘’Miami New Times’’
“How August Ames’ Suicide Is Changing the Porn Industry” from Rolling Stone’’
“Los Angeles is a “City on Fire” in Gaby G’s new video” from Earmilk’’
“For Gaby G, Formerly Known as Native Youth, Sex Sells R&B” Miami New Times’’

…and a ton more. Again, weak keep on my end. Missvain (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Abella Danger: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know from Heavy (website)
Call ‘Em the Dirty Dozen: The 12 Most Popular Stars in Adult Entertainment from Fortune (magazine) reprinted by Yahoo Finance [1]

Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of makes my point. If this is the best we can come up with, then we are far short of what is required for a good quality BLP and I don't feel these get us there for even a marginal one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A handful of brief mentions about a twitter spat, their opinion on someone's suicide, etc... do not add up to a notable biography. Zaathras (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteHe does not have enough fame.--Pmand ^{(talk • Contributions)} 11:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pmand: You mean her? Unless I am missing something, their gender is made quite clear throughout the article. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Missvain and Morbidthoughts. Might be just enough to meet the bar of notability, but it seems like enough. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:28, 24 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 21:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Janson[edit]

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

BLP of a porn star that lacks meaninful reliable sourcing. What we have is run of the mill lists and interviews which don't count as primary sourcing. Throw in a scattering of low value awards and the unreliable adult press noise and we are left with an article that should be deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer who does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to find WP:SIGCOV but struggled. I did find that she's interviewed frequently by women's publications like Bustle about sex and sex advice, but, there is no significant coverage. Missvain (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't seem to be significant coverage about her ... and I agree with Missvain and John Pack Lambert. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 06:48, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climate and energy[edit]

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

Random collection of "see also" links that happen to include the words "climate" and "energy". This is not an article and we have plenty of articles on climate change, Climate change mitigation, and greenhouse gases on the topic. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename I think there's something here. What's provided here is basically "policy relating to the climate-energy nexus", equivalent to the concept of water-energy nexus (i.e. the interaction of energy generation and water management) - and indeed three of the references given here use the term "climate-energy nexus" in the title. The list of links is not random in that regard, but topical: agencies and programmes that specialize in this area. Lacking in text, but this is not an unreasonable start for an article on the topic. I'd suggest renaming however, maybe to climate-energy nexus or climate and energy policy. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination's complaint that this is "random" is absurd. People can and do write entire books about this broad topic. If more prose is wanted then this is done by writing it, not by deleting what we already have. The current, tentative approach to the topic is explicitly commended by policy: "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." Andrew🐉(talk) 23:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear what exactly "we already have", seeing that we do already have several other better developed and connected articles that already cover energy policy and energy's impact on climate and deserve our attention more than a new page with no useful content. They are indeed arbitrary, being unrelated agencies, journals, laws, and organizations which have just these two words in their name in common, though there are many other related groups with the same focus areas without the same keywords. Reywas92^Talk 02:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above statements, plus I do not see a real deletion rationale. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I understood from the first word, 'Random', that the rationale was WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess that would make sense but I don't see how it fits that rationale. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concede that the title may be a little laconic and could also be read as "climate change and energy (over)use" the fact remains undisputed that there is a strong correlation and causal relationship between these and the other mentioned factors. Some authors also include various other types of resources like water into a visualization of the nexus. Not sure whether it would make sense to merge all in any way related articles into a single humongous one. It is quite clear that many governments have realized the particularly strong relationship between the two particular factors and set up initiatives and institutions to study their cross-influence (see list in article). What is good enough on this level should certainly be good enough for WP. -- Kku (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it needs more substantive content and citations, but there's nothing wrong that can't be fixed. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the article is weak as it stands, the topic is essential to understand the predictions made in climate science and the mitigations proposed. The Representative Concentration Pathway article gives a better picture of what this article should be about, although that article cannot serve as the main article for the topic as it is tied to the current IPCC framework. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Obviously running against consensus here, but: this article is so short and so vague that it is impossible to tell what it is about. A magnet for WP:OR, if you ask me. Obviously the climate and energy are notable topics, but I don't know what "climate and energy" is that wouldn't be covered by, say, Politics of climate change. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What this article should be and the politics article is I see as chalk and cheese: that is about the socio-politics, while this article is about two things that concern climate science: first prediction, how do we talk about future energy use scenarios and their climate impact and second mitigation, how would current and future changes in energy use affect what scenarios we might find ourselves in and which are best in effect-for-pain terms. I'm not strongly opposed to TNT, though: I don't see much of value in what we have at present. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to draft space Spudlace (talk) 07:49, 24 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 21:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Delano[edit]

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

This was no consensus previously because of pornbio despite it being a blp that fails gng. Since pornbio has gone and the sourcing remains primary sourcing this should be reconsidered Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete a total failure of GNG. Luckily we have now scapped a guideline that was used to do an end run around GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did my best to find WP:SIGCOV but only found that great Cosmo interview. I did find some coverage that could help build towards WP:BASIC, but, not enough to satisfy me (and I've written entire porn articles based on BASIC that have successfully passed AfDs) for a keep. Here is what I found:

Significant coverage from reliable secondary sources:

“"I Don't Think I Should Be Attacked for Being a Porn Star”” - ‘’Cosmopolitan (magazine)’’

Can help build WP:BASIC:

“The Risky Business of Porn and Viruses” - ‘’Daily Beast’’
“Porn Takes On a Personal Touch in the Pandemic” - The Ringer (website)
“10 Porn Stars Reveal Their Favorite Porn Stars” - Bustle (It’s Jenna Jameson, BTW)
“5 Female Porn Stars Sound Off On Orgasms” - ‘’Elle (magazine)’’ (already in article)
“Does HBO’s ‘The Deuce’ get the portrayal of sex workers right?” - Meaww

Again, not enough to really get Ms. Delano to keep status. Missvain (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources provided by Missvain are the best that I've found. Cannot find any shred of notability at all. For someone who's been in the porn industry for 9 years you'd certainly expect more than just crappy one-bit mentions. Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interviews and casual mentions do not make the subject into a noteworthy bio. Zaathras (talk) 02:17, 22 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 21:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Seybold[edit]

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

Promotional article. Not seeing enough in the article or online to pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Edwardx (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could have been speedied; the article doesn't make any assertion of notability at all. FalconK (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seybold seems quite prolific, but the article doesn't provide any third-party sources (and cursory searching didn't seem to turn up any). Plus, the article is so short, it isn't really helping anyone. ThrillShow (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not pass WP:GNG, looks promotional. Alex-h (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks even one secondary source that is indepdent of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 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. Going to go with keep for now - please discuss merges and redirects on the appropriate talk pages. Thank you! Missvain (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Individual capacity[edit]

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

The article contains no sources and seems to be a mere dictionary definition. Noahfgodard (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikitionary. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am not sure what the bar is here, but it is in 'Category:Legal terminology stubs' google finds lots of relevant hits. What makes the subject of this article not appropriate for wikipedia but leaves everything else in 'Category:Legal terminology stubs' where it is? Jeepday (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to natural person, as a case of that concept. BD2412 T 04:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to natural person: per WP:MERGEREASON#2; individual capacity just a term for status as a natural person. Transwiki to wikt:Individual capacity is also a reasonable option. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:49, 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) 01:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a stub about a legal concept not a dictionary definition. See WP:DICDEF which explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent."

The page should not be merged with natural person because that is a different legal concept. Merger would tend to cause confusion and invite improper synthesis.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to natural person. There is nothing sourced to merge, and I could find no good secondary sources in a search to back up anything this article says. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson.★Trekker (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - it's used sometimes in appellate cases, but without context, this stub won't make sense. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bad feeling this AfD is going to close as No Consensus... Foxnpichu (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It happens! I think it's tricky because while this is a discrete legal concept, the legal concept itself is pretty much a dicdef. That is, it's not the sort of term of art that means something very different from the usual meaning of its words (cf. Legal person). So I'm sympathetic to the idea that the article isn't very valuable right now, but I think its value will become apparent with expansion. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, No Consensus is basically just Keep with another term, so there is that. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:12, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decades (Gary Hughes)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Does not satisfy any of the musical notability criteria, or general notability. Not every album by an artist who has an article is notable.

Was moved to draft space by a reviewer as undersourced. Author added one source and moved it back to article space, which is permitted, but now draftification is no longer an alternative to deletion because it would be move-warring. Author appears to be a fan of the artist, which is permitted, but articles must still satisfy notability.

A Redirect to Gary Hughes is an alternative to deletion, after discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that if the article is kept, its title should be moved to "...(Gary Hughes album)" per disambig conventions. Regardless, the album is only visible in the usual database and streaming services, plus a few brief announcements from the record company. No reliable reviews or other media coverage to be found. Also, I personally don't think a redirect is a good idea due to possible confusion over the common term "Decades". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would have a place on a specialist Fandom site for this style of music, but not on a general encyclopaedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the album aside from a BraveWords article. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM and WP:TOOSOON. The album may well be notable when it comes out in March 2021, but for now there's just an announcement of its release. And given that the article will have to be retitled to Decades (Gary Hughes album), as Doomsdayer520 notes, nothing will be lost by WP:TNT'ing this article now and recreating it under its correct disambiguation if and when there is some further information about it. Richard3120 (talk) 21:06, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Rubin[edit]

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

Page fails to meet the content for WP:GNG for a WP:BLP article. Has yet to establish any kind of substantial notability beyond their recent (two days ago) winning of a music reality competition. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability and fails GNG and NSINGER. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. I thought we tended to keep the winners of major "reality TV shows" and The Voice certainly counts. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has won a major music competition and therefore passes criteria 9 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) as verified in reliable sources such as USA Today, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1st place on The Voice is qualifying criteria despite dutiful coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:37, 24 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 Teli. AfD is for deleting articles. I'm going with redirect here. But, you can discuss mergers and redirects on appropriate talk pages. Missvain (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanchi[edit]

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

This is a subcaste of Teli and is an example of WP:Permastub, it should be deleted as only two information are there about it, first distribution and second that its a subcaste of Teli caste. If deleted the two info could be merged into Teli article, overall WP:GNG are weekly satisfied. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why put these up for AFD instead of just redirecting them? If this is a subcaste of a notable caste then rederecting it there would be less work.★Trekker (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teli. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 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. Missvain (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelton, California[edit]

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

Another isolated siding on a long-abandoned line, to the point where it's difficult to pick out any trace of the former trackbed. There's something involving a bunch of piping there but there's no sign this was ever a settlement, so I'll have to say it isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable rail siding. No sign that the pre-railroad name, Sunset, was a notable place either. –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 22 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 for procedural reasons per WP:R2. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Barclay[edit]

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

I can't see how this article meets the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The references are from sources of unclear reliability that all report on her posting of abuse and homophobia on her Facebook page (many of which have no authors and seem like press releases). ... discospinster _talk 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since none of the sources listed in the article are documentary or reliable, so notability is not met.--NicolaArangino (talk) 21:07, 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. Missvain (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manoel Valente Figueiredo Neto[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NPROF. The references given are run-of-the-mill mentions (i.e. his work in a library catalog) or are PR pieces (no byline). ... discospinster _talk 16:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. A PR stunt, not an article. Kolma8 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PR dross. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Pure vanity fluff, zero notability, zero encyclopaedic value, fails WP:BIO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11. Let's get this closed quickly. This is blatant PR. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article sounds promotional and over hyped. Google scholar shows only 36 total citations, while the article makes it seem like many universities are using his 2 books. If this was the case, there should be hundreds of citations. Article is also full of grammar errors and bad English Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:48, 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 21:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiago Ghidotti[edit]

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

I am unable to find multiple reliable sources with significant discussion of this individual. There are many references in the article, but most do not mention him, or are PR pieces (no byline). ... discospinster _talk 16:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - another promotional PR article from the same editor as for another three articles nominated for deletion. Kolma8 (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails every point in WP:GNG, and is simply a promotional fluffed up article.
Delete Pure vanity piece about a non-notable individual, fails WP:BIO with flying colours, despite the valiant refbombing efforts. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of good sources and WP:TOOSOON. It cites blogs, Press Releases, social media, and Wikipedia itself. He appears to be a young blogger, so his career has a long way to go. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as Renato Cipriano. Article that is a clear attempt to use Wikipedia as a means of promotion. Plus, the creator is almost surely a paid editor who creates articlers for non-notable people as a means of promotion. In the PT.WP this article was created and deleted several times for being WP:PROMO.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 01:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the proper place for promotional adultation. We are not a free for all, modern incaranation of Who's Who, nor are we an alternative to LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 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) 01:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Steel Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT, lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Sources (Els) in the article are not IS RS with SIGCOV. BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 22:24, 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. Missvain (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alter Road[edit]

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

The sourcing is not enough to show notability. To begin with, Alter Road is actually not the city boundary, so Sec. Cisneros' off hand comment about it in a much larger article is not defining, and that it was quoted by a newspaper in the city does not tell us much. I know, Alter Road is more in people's heads then in reality, but one quote from a cabinet secretary and mention on one page in 1 book is not enough to show this. I live on Alter Road, north of Mack so not actually at the boundary of the city. I actually first discovered this article one summer as I walked from my house to the park to help with food distribution there during the summer. None of that walk was anywhere near Grosse Pointe. Why the page should be deleted. I do not think we can justify having an article based on the sources that exist, especially since they do not consider the whole part of the road. There is almost an intersection between Alter Road and I-94, but that is even further north [technically north-west, the road runs at an angle as a legacy of the French Ribbon farms being drawn at a 90 degree angle to the Detroit River], but by then it has turned into Outer Drive. Hmm, the fact that we do not have an article on Outer Drive tells me that a street the size of mine clearly does not deserve an article. This is not 8 Mile, and not just because noone has made the film Alter Road (film) yet. 8 Mile is a real boundary, Alter Road is never actually the boundary, it is just to the west along the property line, so if we want an article on the bounary, we need Alley Way Between Alter Road and Maryland Street. However Mack Avenue (the article there is a redirect to a Grosse Pointe Farms record label that does not explain the meaning of the name) is a longer boundary between Detroit and Grosse Pointe. I see no reason to have this article. If we want to cover the boundaries of Detroit than have the article Boundaries of Detroit and maybe a sub-article Boundaries of Detroit in the popular imagination. Start the later by examing how some have written about Mayor Mike Duggan moving back from across 8 Mile, even though he actually lived in Livonia which is on the same side of 8 Mile as Detroit. To some "crossing 8 Mile" means leaving the city. I know original research is not welcome, but as a Detroit resident I know people reguarlay speak of 8 Mile in a symbolic way [to be fair I grew up in Sterling Heights, where to go into Detroit other than crossing 8 Mile, you had to try hard, although on occasion I did go in by crossing the imaginary line just north of Moross, not one the occasions I biked in Detroit, rarely by bus and rarely by car, at least until I started dating my Alter Road resident wife, 8 Mile is the northern boundary of Detroit for 17.5 miles, and I grew up near the intersection of Dequindre and 15 Mile, the fastest way into Detroit was by I-75. When I biked it was by Dequindre, by bus most often a sort of Dequindre/Woodward hybrid. Even when I worked in the northwest of Detroit and drove in on the Southfield Freeway, I was still entering Detroit across 8 Mile. OK, so I digressed a lot, but I still do not see the level of sourcing that would justify this article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is garbage and overly detailed for a common street that tries to make vague comparisons to 8 Mile Road. There's no indication that Alter Road has any significance, and it doesn't appear to have ever been a state trunkline or have any distinguished history. —Notorious4life (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true. It is not even one of the prime roads in Detroit. Chalmers Road about half a mile further west is either as major or even more major at road. It was never designated as a state route, unlike 8 Mile, and the southern third of so of Alter is a local residential street.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article does not meet notability at all so it must be deleted asap, but at least I do appreciate very much the effort of the user who dared and spent a so long time to write the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolaArangino (talk • contribs) 21:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- This article was created in 2005, a time when Wikipedia was a wild west with little regulation or oversight, and very little sense of what was and what was not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My reference to 8 Mile above should have linked to the article M-102 (Michigan highway). I can assure you that no one who lives in Metro Detroit ever refers to it that way, and I could cite a huge number of scholarly works and newspaper articles that make reference to it as something more than just a method of moving around and more as the divide in Metro Detroit, and they will all call it 8 Mile or 8 Mile Road. The same is true when people refer to it as a real way to move around or a real address, we call it 8 Mile. The school I taught at on 8 Mile people always refered to as such, and my friend who lived at the conner of 8 Mile and Gratioit would describe her address as such, even when it meant that people reacted in odd ways to her living in a place that at one point people thought of as the ultimate in crime. Some maps will also call it Base Line Road. I really think the article should be renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - JPL summed it up perfectly. There's nothing I can add other than "I completely agree" Spiderone 18:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly DISagree with any effort to delete this article from Wikipedia. Alter Road (between Mack Avenue and the Detroit River), IS--repeat IS--a municipal boundary between the City of Detroit and the City of Grosse Pointe Park and the thoroughfare been used as dividing line between ethnicity and economic status for several decades even by elected and high-ranking appointed government officials. Alter Road has caught the attention of the entertainment industry with the NBC television network briefly toying with the notion of making a series about the thoroughfare and with the rock band "Alter Bridge" naming itself in reference to the road. Contrary to the remarks of John Pack Lambert, there IS a Wikipedia article about Outer Drive, just as there IS a Wikipedia about Detroit's Grand Boulevard. -- Gregory Watson

- No, Alter Road is not the municipal boundary. The municipal boundary is half-way between Alter Road and Wayburn Street. Outer Drive does have an article, but that is sourced to one hyper local, not even mainstream publication, and then google maps links, it is not the level of sourcing that shows notability. Being a municipal boundary is not a sign a road is notable. We do not have articles on Mack Avenue, which is actually a municipal boundary of Detroit, nor 5 Points Road, another real municipal boundary, nor Tireman Road, another real municiapl boundary. Nor Kelly Road, which is the boundary for the entirety of the west side of Harper Woods against Detroit. Detroit has something like 18 points on its municipal boundary. Even 8 Mile Road mainly merits an article because it is a truly major throughfare, not just because it is a boundary line. 8 Mile Road is a state route, it is normally 8 lanes wide with a grassy median, and it has fully built interchanges at at least 3 points complete with ramps. Alter is 3 miles long, much of it a local residential street, always overshadowed by Chalmers, and is preempted by Outer Driver before it interests with i-94.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 22 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) 01:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salil Tripathi[edit]

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

Non notable author and editor who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. Most of the sources provided are articles written by him and tweets. We require coverage about him not by him. He had only been in the news because of his tweet about the anniversary of the Demolition of the Babri Masjid, following which his account got suspended by Twitter. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination statement is not accurate. Tripathi is not famous because of his twitter suspension. He is already famous which is why his twitter suspension garnered the attention from renowned personalities all over the world. From what I gather, he is a famous Human rights activist and author, journalist. I believe he passes our GNG criteria easily. Quote: "He (Salil Tripathi) is also an award-winning journalist and author of three works of non-fiction, and chairs PEN International's Writers-in-Prison Committee. " [2]. "Salil Tripathi is one of our most important human rights activists." Salman Rushdie [3] Walrus Ji (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Worldcat, there are 1000+ library holdings of author's works. I also found several reviews of his book in Peer reviewed journals. Seems notable author. --Gazal world (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSeems notable. Found several sources about him on Google search. The article needs improvement.-Nizil (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relieved to see the discussion. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @AltruisticHomoSapien: I found some book reviews about Tripathi's works. Please add them into article: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. Regards. --Gazal world (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if required, move this to draftspace for further research time. Still it is notable.Keep this article. But better if move to draftspace.Dipankar2005 (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet of User:NS Dibyojyoti --Walrus Ji (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous reviews of his books. Some are already linked here. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 24 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 List of English cricketers (1826–1840)#P. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Pitts (cricketer, died 1847)[edit]

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

Lacks notability. We know next to nothing about him, not even his regular team (the "left-handed" was only assembled for a few matches over the years). Only sources are statistics databases. No obvious redirect target, the only place he could belong to is the left vs. right page, but he isn't mentioned there (and probably shouldn't be). Fram (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable figure in the context of a general encyclopaedia. Even on a cricket Fandom site he would only have a brief and cursory entry. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1826–1840) section P. That's one reason these lists exist and why I spent so much time working on them! Given the limits of what we know and that he's only ever recorded in one match of any kind, this seems reasonable. I will merge across references and add a few words to the summary just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to this redirect. I had been looking for some team page to redirect to, didn't think about these year-based lists. Fram (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're good until 1860. I must work on the 1861 to 1870 one at some point, but it's a lot of work... Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all the useful content is on the redirect page anyway, and that'll be all we ever know about him. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is the best solution here and it preserves what little info we do have on this individual Spiderone 18:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect; clear GNG failure but redirect maybe reasonable. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:54, 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 21:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shubham Singh (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Just looks like a puff piece fails WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The first 'source' repeats "founder and CEO of BD Group of Companies" three times in the short 'article' the whole text reads promotional; The second source is just crunchbase so no value; the third does not mention subject; the forth appears to be self posted; His website theshubhamsingh.com claims his company "VD hosts" was setup 2016, with a USA office in 2018 but the website was first registered in Aug 2019; Lastly several of the images/videos for 'products' on vdhosts.co.in can be traced back to the real source companies, for instance the IVR solution has a video from MyOperator. In short this looks like another hoax/fantasy. KylieTastic (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article must not be deleted as there is I have already provide source for this article from National Newspaper. And I still Improving the article. I'm trying to get more sources about this article. Shreetamswain1 (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't yet received enough independent coverage. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:TOOSOON. He's not had the coverage you would expect for a business person because he's a teenager. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 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. Closing due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C. Clements[edit]

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

Crystal clear WP:GNG fail. WP:NCRIC gives an assumption to umpires oddly but ultimately requires WP:GNG to be met. SportingFlyer T·C 15:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 15:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute failure of the GNG; almost no information with which to try and discover further information, if any exists, which seems very unlikely. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable cricket official.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Johnpacklambert, do you even read these articles before you jump in and just vote delete? The subject of the article wasn't a cricket player at all, he was an umpire. It would be helpful if you could participate more constructively in these discussions, rather than jump in and out. Deus et lex (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails just about everything. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think there's really a rationale for keeping or redirecting this one at all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in the same way that referees in football don't inherit notability from matches officiated, nor should cricket umpires. If the match itself were notable, this could be redirected but it isn't as far as I can see Spiderone 18:53, 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 21:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Ofosu Sefah[edit]

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

Non notable politician who doesn’t satisfy WP:NPOL as he is merely a party member. Furthermore the first source used in the article lacks editorial oversight & the second and third are both not independent of the subject hence this overall is also a GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A person who holds a senior role with his country's broadcast regulator (as in the FCC, the CRTC or OFCOM) could certainly get in the door if he could be shown to clear WP:GNG on his sourceability — but it's not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees him an article just because he exists, and neither is anything else stated in the article. And as for the sourcing, two of the three footnotes are to content on the self-published website of his own employer, which is not notability-building sourcing — and even the one source that is a real news article in real media is not about him, but merely quotes him giving soundbite on a subject other than himself, so it isn't enough to singlehandedly get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only real media source in play. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no personal coverage of him in WP:RS and this is basically just a resume. FalconK (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, NPOL, and WP:MILL - he's a mid-level bureaucrat and party functionary. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 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 speedy delete. G4, G11, G12, take your pick. A7 probably also applies as the one claim to notability has zero reliable source. StarM 17:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izzul Iman Zainal[edit]

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

Recreated article about an artist which does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. I would recommend if it gets deleted again the title is salted to prevent further recreation and having to do this again in month. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt lacks independent sourcing. Appears to be self-promotion. Possibly (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this seems to rely primarily on self-published sources it fails WP:BLPSELFPUB. Neutral on salting. --Paul ❬talk❭ 16:34, 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 speedy-delete (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lifefolder (company)[edit]

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

Ref bombed article on a non notable organization of which two-third of the sources aren’t even connected to the organization. A before search reveals no reliable source discussing them with in-depth significant coverage as required by WP:ORGCRIT if you analyze the sources used in the article you’d realize they are all a mirage/facade. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This article has been nominated for deletion. I think that the sources cited need to be carefully evaluated. The Emily bot was even featured on a BBC video. And take into account this company only existed for less than a year. All the sources mention either the company or the product, which in this case is Emily. The Silicon article, even if is not titled 'Lifefolder', is about the Emily chatbot. QuinteroP (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you affirm that the article is on a notable organization? Okay. Celestina007 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lifeholder doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG just yet. I'd recommend moving it to a draft to supplement it with more relevant information before submitting it again. HarrietsCharriot (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with HarrietsCharriot. QuinteroP (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftification wouldn’t be a plausible route to follow seeing as the article in question is showing 0 prospect of notability in the near future so what’s plausible to reasoning would be to delete the article until such a time when they the organization is notable. Furthermore @HarrietsCharriot, of what business doth GNG have to do with WP:ORGCRIT ? Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -A book reference has been added for evaluation. New media references have been added as well. You can carefully evaluate all of them. There are many companies which got Wikipedia articles without getting mentioned in books or getting their work featured on BBC. QuinteroP (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -In addition to, you can see that Lifefolder was featured on the 'The 2018 Yearbook of the Digital Ethics Lab', which is an overview of cutting edge research areas within digital ethics as defined by the Digital Ethics Lab of the University of Oxford, one of the most important universities of the world. Is that a facade? Is that a mirage? QuinteroP (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QuinteroP, feel free to read WP:ORGCRIT, WP:ORGDEPTH, & WP:SIGCOV then comeback and tell me how one book reference satisfies any of the aforementioned. @HarrietsCharriot, if an article isn’t notable it ought not to be on mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 16:59, 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. Closing due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Haditaghi[edit]

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

doesn't appear to be a notable business person, all the sources are contributor pieces or "confidential" (lol) and gossip rags about Bieber visiting this guys tiger (WHAT?!?!), everything else is PR. Also worth noting this was previously deleted under Alex Haditaghi GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of articles on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's slightly eccentric, perhaps, and once tried to monetize street names in Toronto, but all this is really no reason he's notable. FalconK (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Crappy article in which it’s subject satisfies no known notability criteria for retention/inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTRESUME, WP:GNG, WP:MILL, and WP:NOTINHERITED. What a horrible mess. Besides the trivia overwhelming the serious facts, everybody knows in 2020 we are not a resume service such as LinkedIn. He hasn't done anything extraordinary or notable; he appears to be run of the mill. The only real claim to fame is through a friendship with Justin Bieber. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fubon Sky Tree[edit]

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

Searches did not enough in-depth coverage available to pass WP:GNG. A source was added since it was deprodded, but appears to be a puff PR piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have just added a reference to a published book on the architect Toyo Ito's works from 2002 - 2016, which includes a detailed description of the building - Fubon Sky Tree, in the external references list. I hope this is enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. If not, I will find and add more. Regards, --Heeheemalu (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 廖黛柔 (2020-10-23). "名人齊居「富邦天空樹」獨享2千坪私家湖光水色" [Celebrities live together in the "Fubon Sky Tree" to enjoy the 2,000-square-meter private lake]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-10-28. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
2. 鄭啟明 (2019-07-10). "富邦天空樹制霸台中豪宅圈" [Fubon Sky Tree dominates Taichung luxury housing estate]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
3. 黃靖惠 (2020-03-23). "走出轉手賠千萬陰霾！「天空樹」低樓層成交　北部豪客砸2億買2戶" [Fubon Sky Tree low-floor transaction. Northern luxury residents buy 2 households for 200 million]. zh:ETtoday新聞雲 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
4. 鄭啟明 (2019-06-12). "富邦挑戰結構工程極限天空樹收服台中豪宅客" [Fubon Challenges the Limits of Structural Engineering: Sky Tree Wins Taichung Luxury Residents]. Commercial Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fubon Sky Tree to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:05, 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) 15:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aatif Awan[edit]

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

Non notable businessman who fails WP:GNG. Sources on the article are profiles and articles by contributors which do not add up to establishing notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Literally an article about a guy with a job. FalconK (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. This is not a notable business person, but rather run of the mill. The creator appears to be a legitimate Wikipedian, which is why I wonder why he wasted his time creating this "nothingburger". Bearian (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:GNG and WP:MILL.--Pmand ^{(talk • Contributions)} 11:55, 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 keep. Please discuss renaming on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Red[edit]

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

The page was previously proposed for deletion because it did not meet the notable criteria; the creator seemed to propose an advertisement with sources that aren't notable and are permanent dead links; also, the band is not together anymore, page is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Jujucommon (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jujucommon (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They have an album article too: Triplicity (Red Roots album), and that album got some minor reviews. Even if notability is argued in this debate, there is going to be a problem with determining whether their article should be titled Red Roots or Taylor Red, because they got some notice under both names. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage found on the above album page + Nominated for a Dove Award [10]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in reliable christian music sources such as Crossrythms and Christian Music Journal and others, so passing WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:07, 22 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) 15:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Gugeshashvili[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Him surviving previuos AFD is another example of people not actually reading foreign-language articles that they found as a "proof" of notability. You know Google translate exists, right? I checked 9 links that are mentioned in the first AFD: 1 is a dead link; 1 is a trivial post-match interview (after under-17 national game); 1 is mention of him having a nickname on the shirt rather than his actual last name; 5 links are trivial transfer updates; 1 link ([11]) comes anywhere close to being actually good, but it's just an interview that once again discusses the same topics - player's recent transfers and matches. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with BlameRuiner's analysis of the sources presented. At best there is one good source which is not enough for WP:GNG and he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL, even now over a year later Spiderone 13:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total failure of the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 17:05, 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. Missvain (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Wollongong[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In my opinion, I think that it's worth having a second discussion about this one. Since that previous AfD (where the main contributor basically admitted that they use their own eyes to construct this list since there aren't reliable sources compiling the info, in my view, a blatant violation of WP:OR and WP:GNG), there has been a growing consensus that these types of lists do need to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and do need to pass WP:LISTN, some examples are below but this is not exhaustive:

And I could have cited many, many more. As with those above, this fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article (those that are notable are not tall and are not known for their height).
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscraper Center, Skyscraperpage and Emporis do not constitute significant coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Wollongong' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The whole article is currently a violation of WP:NOTMIRROR in that it's just a copy and paste from Emporis.
The city is not the largest in NSW nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building being taller than 35m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in Brisbane so why are we doing it here? Spiderone 11:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make a great argument for keeping this since I can't find any list that's not the Emporis directory, but the tallest buildings in Wollongong have been regularly discussed in local sources, just not as a group. I do want to point out the following fallacies though: lists do not need to be navigational; a city's size or administrative status has no bearing on whether they're eligible for one of these lists; and different cities have different skylines, and Wollongong clearly has a skyline, albeit a small one, so 35m shouldn't be any sort of hard cutoff for an article. I also don't think WP:NOTMIRROR applies here - the spirit of NOTMIRROR is to prevent us from hosting indiscriminate copy-pastes of public domain material. What's important is the available sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 14:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, for the topic of tall buildings in Wollongong to be notable, there would need to be at least some sources commenting on the development of skyline or its influence on other cities. For example, in the recent Rockford AfD, it was questioned why Chicago warranted such an article but Rockford didn't, to which I responded with Chicago is home to St. Regis Chicago, the tallest structure in the world designed by a woman. This alone gets coverage, for example here and here and here. Chicago was and still is hugely influential in the world of skyscraper development. It is the subject of numerous books, for example this, this and this. Also, this article explains how even the great Burj Khalifa and the Jeddah Tower can be linked to Chicago. If a similar amount of importance and notability can be found for Rockford then I'll happily change my stance to keep. Even if a lot of these heights could be sourced, there would still be a question mark over the overall notability of the actual topic itself. The reason I brought up navigational purpose is because these lists can sometimes be reappropriated as, say, 'List of notable buildings in Wollongong' but I don't think that there are enough notable buildings in this list to make that move. Technically, none of these buildings are tall as, according to most definitions, skyscrapers must be at least 150m tall, so Wollongong has no skyscrapers. Compare that to Sydney, with 40 skyscrapers and 18 more under construction and the contrast is clear. Spiderone 15:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings on the list are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, there is nothing there that can assist in navigation. // Timothy :: talk 18:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly fails my standards. - and per nom. Only one building is over 20 stories, and none are over 60 floors. This is not an international tourist or business destination. It makes no sense to me. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:LISTN. Abhi88iisc (talk) 15:57, 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 keep. Closing due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katheryn Edmonds Rajnak[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD was removed by User:Graeme Bartlett with no rationale despite my explicit request for one. Pinging User:Melcous who tagged this article for OR (one of the references is described as 'email'), User:Kj cheetham who tagged this for 'example farm', and User:John B123 who asked for better refs. I will note that there the subject is covered in American Men & Women of Science. I have checked the 2005 edition and verified this fact, but I am not impressed by this source. The entries are just CV excerpts. Here is the entire excerpt for the subject, minus their mailing address and email (through I guess those are part of the public record anyway): "RAJNAK, KATHERYN EDMONDS, ATOMIC PHYSICS. Personal Data: b Kalamazoo, Mich, April 30, 1937; m 1961, Stanley. Education: Kalamazoo Col, BA, 1959; Univ Calif, Berkeley, PhD(chem), 1963. Professional Experience: RETIRED; adj assoc prof, Kalamazoo Col, 1985-1996; vis prof, Univ Paris, IV, 1979 & 1980 & Univ Paris, Orsay, 1979 & 1981; consult, Lawrence Livermore Lab, 1975-1989; physicist, Lawrence Livermore Lab, 1974-1975; asst prof physics, Kalamazoo Col, 1967-1970; Consult, Argonne Nat Lab, 1966-1989; Fel chem, Lawrence Radiation Lab, 1962-1965; adj lectr physics, Kalamazoo Col. Research Statement & Publications: Theory and analysis of lanthanide and actinide spectra. M". I am not seeing anything that seems to meet NPROF, unless the inclusion in the cited reference work is enough. For the record, the reason I don't think this reference work is sufficient is that I'd expect at least few full sentences, with a qualifier that the subject has done something significant, and said entry to be written by another scholar. This is the standard I am used to with other reference works like the Polish Biographical Dictionary. To repeat myself, I see no evidence that American Men & Women of Science is doing anything except reprinting CV excerpts, and as such I don't think inclusion in this work means that the subject meets NACADEMIC #1 or 2 (a quick glance at some other entries in this book suggests that one doesn't even have to hold a title of professor to be included in this work). PS, I started the discussion at Talk:American Men and Women of Science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 17 December 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} 10:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. American Men and Women of Science is a perfectly decent reference. In addition to that, the citability data is highly impressive. As the publication list indicates, the subject was publishing her papers as "K. Rajnak". A GScholar search for "K. Rajnak" produces top hits of 2765, 1182, and 1205, for journal papers published in 1968, 1968 and 1989 accordingly, before the internet age, which is quite remarkable, especially given the theoretical nature of her field of study. Passes WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not convinced. Three papers (co-authored with two other authors) with good citation counts, that's all - is it really enough to pass PROF C1? And the assertion "American Men and Women of Science is a perfectly decent reference" is just that, an assertion. I provided an argument why it is bad to which you reply "no it is good". What is clearly not "perfectly decent" is your argument. Try again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - American Men and Women of Science used an old-fashioned compressed styled of summarizing a biographical entry that was completely common for various biographical dictionaries and almanachs earlier and is still not that uncommon today. What matters is not the style of the entry but the reputation of the source. American Men and Women of Science is not a vanity press but a legitimate well-established publication with wide holdings. Here is a sample published review of them from 1977[12]. Regarding co-authors, in theoretical fields like mathematics and theoretical physics, joint papers usually don't have the "first author", the authors are typically listed alphabetically and the credit is not subdivided. It is extremely rare for a journal article in those fields to get 1000+ citations; that usually only happens with books. Here we have three such articles, all from pre-internet era. That alone would have been quite enough for me in terms of WP:PROF#C1 even if the American Men and Women of Science reference didn't exist. Nsk92 (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 11:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several very highly cited papers in medium citation field is the kind of impact that we're looking for with WP:NPROF C1. I also think that American Men and Women of Science is probably the kind of encyclopedia entry that WP:ANYBIO refers to (per the Wikipedia article on that publication); additionally, Kalamazoo College thinks she's notable enough that the library has a collection of materials related to her. [13] While she didn't hold an especially fancy academic position, it appears plausible that she fell into the systemic problems faced by many midcentury female academic. (For example, colleges at this time often had nepotism rules preventing hiring both of a married couple as professors.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citation record is good enough for WP:PROF#C1 and we have enough sourced material for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per comments by others, seems to be a pass of WP:PROF, especially in light of the time period. WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed the prod because I was checking out new pages to do with chemistry. This person appears to have made more publications than the typical academic with an article here. And also in a subject area I am interested in. Really I think that NPROF should be changed, but as it stands NPROF would allow this page, due to large numbers of cites to publications. Also given that the person has died, and has a biographical entry in an independent book, this is ahead of most academics here in Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An h-index over 20, seven papers in the at-least-triple-digit citation range, three with over 1000, all in the pre-Internet era — that sounds like a WP:PROF#C1 pass. Moreover, I agree with Russ Woodroofe that inclusion in American Men and Women of Science is the sort of recognition that WP:ANYBIO is asking for. XOR'easter (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The high citations are enough to meet WP:PROF, with one 1968 paper on 2765 GS citations (afaik, extremely uncommon in an era when there were far fewer journals than there are now and much less citation bulking), two other papers >1000 and a total of 7 >100. Inclusion in a national biographical dictionary also meets WP:ANYBIO; echoing those above who state this compressed presentation was entirely normal in paper biographical dictionaries. Online searches should never be used as a basis for determining notability for people who retired before the internet era. ETA: In case anyone is worried about the implied original research, the e-mail source in question relates to an entirely trivial point not directly related to the subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:25, 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. Missvain (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wingy Ames[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with the usual copy-paste edit summary that did not challenge the PROD rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 17 December 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} 09:11, 17 December 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} 09:11, 17 December 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} 09:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Extremely minor character that appeared in a single issue of a comic book. There are basically zero reliable sources even mentioning this character, and even the non-reliable sources look to largely just be mirrors of this Wikipedia article. This should have really been allowed to be deleted via PROD, because there is nothing controversial about deleting this. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial article that fails to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 21:23, 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 redirect to Creeper (DC Comics). Missvain (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Yatz[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with the usual copy-paste edit summary that did not challenge the PROD rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 17 December 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} 09:11, 17 December 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} 09:11, 17 December 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} 09:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Creeper (DC Comics) - Unlike the other two Creeper-related AFDs today, this character does get a few brief mentions here or there under his various names, largely due to the fact that he is explicitly tied to the origin of the notable character, The Creeper. Not enough to actually pass the WP:GNG or support an independent article, but enough that it would make sense to redirect this page to the main page on the Creeper, where he is actually already discussed quite a bit. Rorshacma (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - There are no sources to meet WP:GNG and it's all plot info. TTN (talk) 15:28, 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. Geschichte (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of art galleries in Lahore[edit]

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

A list of nn redlinks (one nn blue link). Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. If there was anything but redlinks here it could be merged into Lahore, Pakistan#Museums (or under it), but a collection of redlinks would diminish the target article. // Timothy :: talk 08:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list that fails WP:LISTN and has no purpose under WP:LISTPURP; it has no navigational purpose, no evidence of notability, it does not inform and it does not aid with development of the encyclopaedia Spiderone 10:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely and I intend to block the spammer who created it. Deb (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Directory of non notable entities. Ajf773 (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - it's a bunch of red links for a city that is not a major art capital. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pakistan as a whole has enough articles on art galleries and museums to merit a list for the whole country (see Category:Art museums and galleries in Pakistan), individual cities much less so. Suggest such a nationwide list be created, which of course can be annotated with the specific locale of each entry. postdlf (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:LISTN. Abhi88iisc (talk) 15:56, 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) 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzada Salim Reza[edit]

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

This article is about a living person whose only claim to notability are feature articles published in a few printed and online publishing outlets. This article was first created and speedy deleted for lack of notability less than a week ago and the same author recreated it without addressing the fundamental issues raised. Northern Escapee (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 24 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) 01:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moody Middle School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage in local news, the type all secondary schools would receive in local news. BEFORE revealed nothing that meets SIGCOV. There is no sourced content to merge; it could be redirected to School District 43 Coquitlam if there is consensus. This is a nice, normal, school, with local news coverage, not an encyclopedic topic. Previous AfDs from 2005 and 2006. // Timothy :: talk 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Comparing this with other secondary schools in School District 43 Coquitlam, this is a stub that we must keep. It may be called a middle school- but it once was a high school which colours the decision. A school realignment and a fire means that significant covefrage will exist even if the previous editor didn't understand the importance of including the references. Gleneagle Secondary School (now a upper high) has found over 20 refs.ClemRutter (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need really good sourcing to justify an article on something that is covering below grade 9, and we do not have that level of sourcing here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lackluster sourcing. The only thing I see going for this is the fire mentioned by ClemRutter, but whatever coverage there is of it likely is local and it basing the article on that alone would go against audience and NOTNEWS anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims in the article that make it notable, nothing found to support notability Jeepday (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Port_Moody#Education; even former high schools are no longer automatically notable, so we don't have to keep it. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:17, 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. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jatt Romantic[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, also regional indian film of Punjabi language. lack of third party independent sources. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can be moved as draft. No references used. Only an external link (that too also a facebook link) used. Dwain09877 (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Argument of being "regional indian film of Punjabi language" has no bearing on film's notability, unless you are suggesting that Punjabi-language sources may exist. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:45, 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) 01:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In no way meets WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO - Kolma8 (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of this passing WP:NFILM; no prejudice against this being worked on in draft if someone is convinced that sources do exist Spiderone 08:35, 24 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) 01:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of the Mamas and the Papas[edit]

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

This compilation album lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to meet notability, nor does it meet any of the criteria at WP:NALBUM. The only thing approaching coverage is the the All Music review, but that is a boiler plate review. The first half of the review is about the series of compilations and the same text appears in every review of an album in this series. I considered a redirect to The Mamas & the Papas discography, but the discography makes no mention of this album and only includes compilations that have charted.Whpq (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find other RSs that have anything to say about it. There are lots of budget compilations out there, but no reviews, etc., from which to write a reasonably detailed article. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG and it certainly doesn't meet WP:NALBUM.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Mamas & the Papas discography: Barely found anything about the compilation album, not even a single review about it. Not all compilation albums baring the 20th Century Masters imprint are notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: - The discography lists only the charting compilations so there is no mention of this album at the target. -- Whpq (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq, Anyone can add that album in the band's discgraphy page. That's no big deal at all. Therefore, a redirect is the best way to go. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply from hereon. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:59, 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) 01:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Redirecting boldly and adding the album to the discography could be done, but it is not at all clear that this should be decided here at AFD. I would have redirected myself if the discography listed this album. As of the writing of this comment, it still doesn't so a redirect would not be useful. As for boldly adding the album the discography, the editors of the article have made a deliberate editorial decision to list only the charting compilations, and changing such a decision should happen at the article and not at an AFD just because somebody created an article for a non-notable, non-charting compilation album. If it is later decided to include all the compilations, a redirect can very easily be created. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no new content in this album, no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I respect the decision by the folks at the Mamas & Papas discography article to only list compilations that charted, because they are the type of band that suffers from management shenanigans that in turn unleash dozens of pointless and repetitive compilations. So don't redirect there. Meanwhile, the "20th Century Masters" series was itself a flood of repetitive compilations, and most came and went with little interest from the media and public. This one for Mamas & Papas got the boilerplate "review" at AllMusic, which is more a matter of completeness than reporting. Nobody else noticed either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:01, 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dianna Cohen[edit]

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

BLP1E-ish. The org may not be notable (I haven't yet checked) but I can barely find any mentions of Cohen in the context of the organisation, let alone mentions that'd satisfy GNG. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 22:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 22:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 22:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Plastic Pollution Coalition, the notability, if any, lies there. Geschichte (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I don't have any vote on the issue, but wanted to make clear that I believe that she is the co-founder and CEO of the Plastic Pollution Coalition. I don't know the notability rules on founders and CEOs so I will defer to others. Link Remember (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG applies, same as with any article. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 19:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commet I am not sure I see clear notability here; while an important genre (environment), how is this particular organization different and more noteworthy than the other thousands of environmental organizations? The citations seem to just be evidence of it's existence and the work they do, but it doesn't seem that they've done anything particularly significant. Does just being part of an important movement make an organization significant? Star7924 (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The organization is not up for debate here. But a debate on it may be started. Geschichte (talk) 21:24, 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) 01:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, she's not notable and what usable information is in the article is already present in Plastic Pollution Coalition anyways. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets GNG. Inexplicably, references from the New York Times [14], the Atlantic [15], and NBC News [16] were not used in this article. JSFarman (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This Rolling Stone article also provides extensive coverage specifically about Cohen.[17] JSFarman (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by JSFarman. Also, the U.S. State Department organized an exhibit of her work at the embassy in Poland, according to this coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to KEEP Dianna is on the forefront of the Climate Change solution and Last week Dianna Cohen lead a Press Conference on the Plastic Free Presidency . Jgorman60 (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is kept, then it will need a bit of rev/deletion. WP:COI account Jgorman60 (talk · contribs) has added promotional and copyright violation content multiple times. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per JSFarman's sourcing. Please improve and if there are further issues, we can proceed accordingly. Missvain (talk) 01:38, 25 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) 01:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonora Junction, California[edit]

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

This article was created by an author who engaged in a massive campaign of article creation based on data from GNIS and/or Durham. As has been discussed many times in many other AFDs, per WP:GNIS, the GNIS database is not a reliable source for the existence of a community (many of the locations labelled "populated place" on the GNIS database are not, and never have been, populated places). Durham probably is more reliable, but the author has repeatedly mischaracterised how Durham actually describes places (Durham refers to a "locality", a term which, as used by Durham, is not necessarily an inhabited or formerly inhabited place, but the author of this article has assumed this meant a populated place).

In this particular article the census data for the census block in which Sonora Junction is located is additionally cited, but census tracts are not automatically notable per WP:GEOLAND, and this reference only describes the census block which it calls "Sonora Junction Area". Sonora Junction itself appears to be just a road or railway junction.

This article fails WP:GEOLAND no. 1 because it is not a legally recognised community (e.g., it has not been incorporated), a listing on GNIS does not constitute legal recognition as GNIS lists many non-legally-recognised geographical features (e.g., mountains, churches, mills etc.). GNIS is simply there to standardise names, not confer recognition. It fails WP:GEOLAND no. 2 as it is not clear whether it is actually an inhabited community and even if it is there is no evidence that it passes WP:GNG. Searches on Newspapers.com and similar sources turn up nothing but bare mentions with no WP:SIGCOV of the topic. Notably many of sources refer to "The Sonora Junction" (i.e., to a road/rail junction) and are reports on road works or are directions for driving. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My newspapers.com search shows this was clearly a former populated place. Incorporation is not necessary to be a "populated place" and this appears far beyond the other California stubs that are just railroad sidngs. SportingFlyer T·C 15:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SportingFlyer. Per WP:GEOLAND the point about incorporation is legal recognition. Even if inhabited, Sonora Junction is not legally recognised and thus is not automatically notable under WP:GEOLAND - instead it has to pass WP:GNG. Did you find any evidence at Newspapers.com that it would pass WP:GNG? I could not, all I could see were bare mentions, not WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this interpretation. The US is weird that you can have incorporated and unincorporated communities, but an unincorporated community in the US may be equal to a very small hamlet in some other country. "Not legal recognition" really means buildings and neighbourhoods in my mind. I found a lot of evidence people have lived here like [18], and the stubby article is still more than "this was a place" such as this award of a contract to build a building. SportingFlyer T·C 16:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear the two mentions you've linked are:

1. "The Browns live in Sonora Junction 110 miles north of Bishop" (the subject of the story is the death of a baby at Northern Inyo Hospital, which is in Bishop, California)
2. "F M Santa of Bishop was awarded the contract for a workmen's cottage at Sonora Junction station on his bid of $2100".

Nothing further is said about Sonora Junction in either of those pieces. The standard for Sigcov is that it "addresses the topic directly and in detail" - neither source does that. Neither demonstrates legal recognition of Sonora Junction either. The second seems to heavily imply that Sonora Junction is just a railway junction/station. If Sonora Junction is legally recognised, what is it legally recognised as, and what evidence of this exists? FOARP (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except there's no railroad within at least a few dozen if not a few hundred kilometres. WP:GEOLAND has probably the lowest standards for notability of any SNG on the site and is an alternative to GNG - was it a town? Was it populated? Would we expect to have an article on it? Again, the non-legal bit is subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods and this isn't that - it's a place where people used to live that's still referenced on maps by newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, unlike dozens of the other terrible GNIS stubs that we're picking through, which is all that WP:GEOLAND requires. I don't think we're going to agree on this, so let's let the AfD play out? SportingFlyer T·C 17:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Except there's no railroad within at least a few dozen if not a few hundred kilometres." - the article you've cited to defend your position above explicitly describes a "station" at Sonora Junction - I suppose this might be a station of some other kind than a railway station (farm station?) but in any event, it is not how you describe a community. WP:GEOLAND's lowered standard is only for legally recognised populated places - where is the evidence that this is a legally recognised place? The "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods" part of GEOLAND are explicitly just examples and are a non-exhaustive list, and Sonora Junction could simply be a subdivision, housing development, informal region, or unofficial neighbourhood (or even just a junction). The burden of proof is on those claiming this is a GEOLAND pass to show evidence that it meets the standard. FOARP (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS - just to address this point: buildings("including private residences and commercial developments") don't fall under WP:GEOLAND, they fall under WP:NBUILDING, so the mere presence of one or more buildings at Sonora Junction also doesn't make it a Geoland pass. FOARP (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is instructive and describes several people who live in Sonora Junction, including people living at the "highway camp" there. This describes houses at the site. Aerials from 1980 show a row of houses along the highway - by 2005, those houses have been demolished. The station is probably the stagecoach station mentioned by Durham in the article. Also mentioned at the federal register as recently as 2013 "Sonora+Junction,+California". I am not saying this is a building - it was at one point a populated place, reflected in a gazetteer and by numerous newspaper articles. SIGCOV isn't required, and the "legally recognised" doesn't exclude unincorporated communities. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taking those mentions one at a time:

"MOVE TO SONORA Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd Jordan have moved to Sonora Junction where he is employed by the state highway department at the maintenance station there"" - so it's just a highway maintenance station?
"Mr. and Mrs. Lee Harvey of Sonora Junction, who recently celebrated their twenty-fifth wedding anniversary, purchased a five hundred dollar bond in the fourth war drive for Mono county, instead of taking their trip to San Francisco. Mrs. Walter Mathias gave a luncheon at her home at Sonora Junction Tuesday of last week. Guests were Mesdames Nellie Har-,vey, Hazel Gould, Anna Sonnesyn "and also Lillian Deyo.". None of this is evidence of legal recognition. None of this even describes what Sonora Junction is.
"The Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center is located on lands in Mono County near Sonora Junction. Again, this doesn't describe what Sonora Junction actually is.

Taken at face value your argument means that WP:GEOLAND would confer an automatic presumption of notability on any location, anywhere, that had ever anyone live there, ever, regardless of whether any detail exists in any source that would allow an article to be written. The entire reason legal recognition is a requirement is to avoid this - hence unincorporated communities (i.e., ones that have no legal recognition) are excluded.

I think it's also useful to consider how unincorporated communities are described in our article about them, particularly it describes them as neighbourhoods (i.e., exactly the language used in WP:GEOLAND to describe places without legal recognition). FOARP (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're mis-representing my argument. Clearly, not every place where anyone has ever lived is worthy for an article - we've seen that with numerous deleted California place names during cleanup. But being incorporated isn't the requirement for WP:GEOLAND, and this isn't one of those places that were nothing then and are nothing now - it's a stub article we can write a blurb about. And while it doesn't appear currently populated, but it's a place someone might reasonably "sonora+junction"+california expect to find on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Unincorporated" literally means not legally recognised. Those articles only briefly mention Sonora Junction and describe exactly nothing about it. FOARP (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, "unincorporated" specifically means it's a locality that's not governed by a municipal charter. The majority of populated places in California are unincorporated! I'm not going to agree with you here - I firmly believe this is a place which needs to be included in the encyclopaedia per Wikipedia:Gazetteer, and you're not going to change my mind by trying to legal this into a different definition. This isn't one of those miscategorised GNIS stubs. Let's please agree to leave it. SportingFlyer T·C 21:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete The problem I'm having is this: it's taking way too much interpretation to deal with this. The topos I'm looking at only go back into the 1950s, but they show all of the buildings next to a label reading "maint. sta.". That depot is still there, and at least one of the buildings from that photo is still there. Meanwhile around the corner to the south we have a label reading "Hardy Station", and while the topos go back and forth about it, the aerials all show the same single building that's still there. But since the GNIS entry calls it a "locale", it didn't get a WP article. The name suggests it's actually the "stage station" mentioned in the article, but there is of course no way to tell. Mangoe (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much there, but I'm leaning keep since it's clearly a current recognised spot on the map by both the federal government and newspapers around California, and it was once clearly populated. We don't need to call it a community. I'll work on adding a couple more citations. SportingFlyer T·C 09:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, if we want to have an article which starts "Sonora Junction was a community in Mono County, eastern California", then we need a source which supports that. The GNIS is cited but this has been shown to be wrong in numerous cases so it's not reliable. There don't seem to be any other sources out there which can support this statement. We can't infer the existence of a community from passing mentions showing that somebody lived there - that would be original research, and somebody living there doesn't make a community. I know the notability standards for places are low, but they aren't so low that we can ignore basic policy. In any case WP:GEOLAND only grants near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, and I don't see any evidence that this is or was legally recognised. If it hasn't ever been legally recognised then it has to pass the WP:GNG, and the very brief mentions of it don't come at all close to doing this. Hut 8.5 09:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Historic topos and this 1908 pub indicate that Hardy Station was at this location. The 1908 pub says "to Junction, formerly called Hardy Station". The topos show Hardy Station and Sonora Junction as being two slightly different locations. Searching newspapers.com for "Sonora Junction" finds [19], which has trivial mentions of people living at the Sonora Junction highway camp. An obit states that people lived at Sonora Junction. Newspapers.com offered some other hits, like the $500 bond and a number of mentions of the locale that did not state that there was a community at that location. Searching newspapers.com for Hardy Station found two trivial hits and another trivial hit that stated "Junction house, known as Hardy Station in the old days". JSTOR had 13 hits for "Sonora Junction", including a fascinating article about Fremont's cannon, but none of the articles stated that there was a community at Sonora Junction. JSTOR had 6 hits for "Hardy Station", none of which seemed to apply to this location. I found no evidence of Sonora Junction nor Hardy Station being legally recognized, so #1 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. I found scanty coverage of a community at this location, none of which is notable. I agree that people lived here, there is just no non-trivial independent coverage of Sonora Junction that indicates that it is notable. Thus, #2 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. Cxbrx (talk) 05:52, 24 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) 01:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brays Landing, Virginia[edit]

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

Topos show a literal bayside landing, newspapers.com results are not meaningful. This does not seem to meet any point of WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The creator here also mass-created thousands of place articles from GNIS in Virginia without regard for WP:V or WP:N. No evidence this "is an unincorporated community" or ever was. Reywas92^Talk 08:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria. This level of mass creation is why I think we need to go to making every new article go through the Articles for Creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 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. Geschichte (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Office War[edit]

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

An unremarkable 2008 Youtube video. Sources found tend to be blog posts saying "watch this video" [20] [21], not substantial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the video. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Surely fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 17:10, 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) 15:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas Tree (1991 film)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable.

Among the sources and links in the article:

I removed The Film Reel because it appears to be a fan blog.
Also removed was TV Tropes, which is an open wiki and therefore not a RS.
VHS Collector is a database that merely confirms that the movie exists.
Amazon is also not a reliable source.
Behind the Voice Actors is 404.
The Nostalgia Critic is a comedic based show and not likely to serve much purpose as an encyclopedic source.

Searching "Nels Christianson" or "Flamarion Ferreira" in combination with "Christmas Tree" only turned up wikis, video review shows, or sales sites. Every name attached to the project is a redlinked name mentioned nowhere else on Wikipedia. While it seems that this film does have some underground notoriety on the review circuit, it pretty thoroughly fails WP:NFILM. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than YouTube and SPS reviews like Saberspark's (which while funny, can't establish notability) there's just not anything out there to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. I might also support salting the title depending on how often this article was recreated. This is not the first time this article has existed. For example, this article was created when the Nostalgia Critic's review first came out but was deleted fairly quickly. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:07, 24 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) 15:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Data-Fly[edit]

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

Apparently never-released game. Doesn't appear to have been substantial coverage of the game's development, just a few press releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very obscure, page is extremely outdated.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obscure, dead game by an obscure, dead company. IceWelder [✉] 14:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some cancelled games are still notable enough for articles. This is not one of those games. Pure non-notable vaporware._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreleased game that pretty much dropped off the face of the Earth. Hardly any reliable coverage or important history behind it. Scrooge200 (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:31, 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) 01:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Derman[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Article is unsourced; appearing in a minor role in The Tango Lesson is verifiable but wouldn't meet WP:NACTOR. The rest appears sourced to a blog post; I can't find any other information about this person. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Certainly fails WP:NACTOR, as stated in the nomination, but he had enough press to deserve a detailed mention on articles like The Tango Lesson or Milonguero.---Darius (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the press is not in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Would have redirected to The Tango Lesson, but his role in that is so minor, he's not mentioned at that article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:15, 24 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) 01:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D'illusion: The Houdini Musical[edit]

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

It is rather self-promotional content, created by one person, who seems to be closely related to the topic. He/she also created and dramatically expanded a few articles to the same group of people around this project. Essentially, does not meet any of: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS). The subject of the article was able to get less than 1K views on YouTube, a google search returns almost no content other than this article and the project's website. Recommend deletion. Thank youKolma8 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge Bálint Varga, another AfD, into this article, or a new article that captures all of the info about the musical and playwright in one place. This article in particular shows some good research and attention to detail. It may well be that Hungarian-language sources are available, but all in all this appears to be a good encyclopedia piece worth keeping.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:40, 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) 01:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Concertmusic - there is no Hungarian articles about this audiobook or Mr. Varga. Also, I am not sure if this audiobook qualify for a musical, but certainly released as an audiobook/album per its website. I still do not see how it meets notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Recordings:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.

- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following:

- Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising.

- Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.

2. The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart.

3. The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country.

4. The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

5. The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).

6. The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

7. The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

As of now it fails all of the above. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 24 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 Nolin River Lake. Missvain (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moutardier, Kentucky[edit]

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

Topos don't really show anything resembling a community at all here, but newspapers.com clarifies the situation: this appears to have been some sort of resort/marina. (FWIW, Rennick's index calls it a locale, but doesn't expound on it). Doesn't seem to be in his published book or his Grayson County directory. But for the stuff that actually mentions it: [22] calls it a resort and marina. calls it a "recreational site". [https://www.newspapers.com/image/661249329/?terms=Moutardier&match=1 references Moutarider as a boat ramp. [23] calls it "Nolin's largest campground". This isn't and wasn't a community, so WP:GEOLAND isn't met. The coverage doesn't rise to meet WP:GNG, either. (a lot of the mentions are in advertisements). Hog Farm _Bacon 03:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete In fact the newspaper hits are misses, as it were: when the river was dammed, eventually a rec area and boat ramp were built on its shores, quite a distance from the original Moutardier. That spot shows a great deal of change over the years on the aerials, so that almost all of the original buildings disappear, replaced by new houses, a tackle shop, and some other businesses on different spots. My guess is that Moutardier refers to the whole locale rather than a particular settlement, if it is thought of at all, but I can't show that. It looks on the aerials that the original place was maybe a couple of now defunct farms. I'm still fairly dubious about the presence of a notable settlement, but I'm not quite sure about it. Mangoe (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Nolin River Lake, to the extent that there's much of anything to merge. There's little enough out there on the original site that we can't really say what it is, and it seems like the modern Moutardier is more of a recreation area on the lake than a proper community. It's worth noting in the lake's article, but unless someone finds a lot more information on it I'm not sure it merits its own article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nolin River Lake, not independently notable, but deserves a mention at the lake article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:41, 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) 13:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sinéad Ní Loideáin[edit]

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

I can find no sources to support a claim to notability under WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. A search of the main newspapers of record in Ireland, the Irish Times and Irish Independent stable of regionals, return just one and two pieces of coverage respectively. The singular Irish Times result is a passing mention. The two Irish Independent pieces are short interview pieces which are less than expansive and not independent of the subject. Even if they were, two such pieces would not seem to constitute significant coverage. The three credits listed in IMDB do not indicate the "significant roles in multiple notable films[..] productions" proposed by WP:ENTERTAINER. Not seeing how any applicable notability criteria is met. Guliolopez (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails notbaility. Spleodrach (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as outlined above. Star7924 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:44, 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. Missvain (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Moon Records[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable, at least the sources do not indicate notability GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American record label. The only notable act on the label is All Time Low, the rest of them does not even have their own articles. Lady Radiator is already on Afd so that isn't notable. And the sourcing is horrible. Actually, there's no sourcing in the article, just external links which do not contribute to notability. All I found during a Google search were the site of the label, the Wiki article and its mirrors, databases like discogs, genius and spirit of rock, lots and lots of trivial mentions, and equally trivial and promotional news about them signing a band. But no reliable sources ever written about their history, activity or anything that would indicate notability. In my opinion, this label is not notable (aside from the fact that All Time Low are signed to them), but prove me wrong. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Actually, I did find one source which looks reliable, [24]. But that is the only one. In general, record labels are notable for what they release, but one notable band, and one barely notable band, doesn't exceed my threshold of "roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable." Therefore this fails WP:GNG, unless additional sources can be found, and WP:NMUSIC#5. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This label's profile was raised significantly by the immense success of All Time Low, which became one of the best-selling bands of its genre after it moved on to other labels. I think there may be some more substantial pieces out there focusing on the label's other output in the wake of All Time Low's move to the mainstream, but I'm afraid I don't have them on hand. At the very least, there should be no prejudice to re-creation in the event that this discussion closes to delete. Chubbles (talk) 14:30, 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) 01:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no citations at all. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Did a search to look for reliable references, 4 pages into google I did not see any that would count as reliable. Duncan079 (talk) 18:57, 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) 03:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 24 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) 01:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel de la Rocha Vázquez[edit]

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

promotional bio of minor politician--no elected offices or cabinet rank. The refs seem promotional of mere notices DGG ( talk ) 13:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All content is backed up by several reliable third-party sources, intellectually independent of each other: La Información, Cinco Días, Expansión, El Español, El Periódico and RTVE (with the possible exception if we want to be picky of #4, published by a third-party independent source (El Español) but a CV nonetheless, although the content backed up by that source can be verified by the rest of sources, it's just the former provides chronology. Thus "secondary" sources for Wikipedia purposes, establishing a case for WP:BASIC as in "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". As for responsibilities, neither an executive role at the governing body of a major political party (Secretary of Economy) nor being appointed member to the Cabinet Office of the head of government of a country are indeed included in WP:NPOL, but then again, the article complies to WP:BASIC. Complying to WP:BASIC and not complying to WP:NPOL seems to be rather routine in Wikipedia at least for articles of US policy wonks (either in "national party committees" or "cabinet offices"). Care to inform why is it "promotional"?--Asqueladd (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is not that people are exempted from WP:NPOL just because they can show a handful of sources — especially since some of the article's seven footnotes just glancingly namecheck his existence in passing, and aren't substantively about him. You need a lot more sources than this to actually get him a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to hold an NPOL-passing role. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 29 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, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-11 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:29, 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) 01:24, 9 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) 03:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally marked this article as reviewed, but that was due to misunderstanding his current role in the government, thinking that the department of economic affairs was a cabinet-level position. It isn't, so therefore he doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Kolma8 (talk) 15:34, 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 no consensus. After 3 relists, still no consensus. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand at the 2013 Rugby League World Cup[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

All the information is in the relevant pages related to the respective Rugby League World Cups, it's just a duplicated assortment. WDM10 (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps I am misunderstanding. Is the nomination claiming that all the information in New Zealand at the 2013 Rugby League World Cup is in 2013 Rugby League World Cup, and so on? If so that simply isn't the case. Thincat (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not all in that article, however the squad is in 2013 Rugby League World Cup squads and the matches are in 2013 Rugby League World Cup Group B and 2013 Rugby League World Cup knockout stage, basically making this page redundant. WDM10 (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because that claim doesn't seem right either. The other year 2013 articles seem, in relation to New Zealand, pretty much tables of results. The article here has prose content that is somewhat (though inadequately) referenced in "Background" and "Build up" as well as in parts of other sections. Whether these articles should be merged together in some way I don't know (I have no interest in the subject). However, that would likely involve keeping parts of the present article and not deleting it. Any plans for reorganisation of all this material should take place not at AFD but at an appropriate discussion forum. Thincat (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- New Zealand Rugby League has season pages (e.g. 2013 New Zealand rugby league season) which the build-up could move to as these pages reference the national team in fair detail. WDM10 (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:23, 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) 01:25, 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) 03:48, 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 keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott L. Smith, Jr.[edit]

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

Non notable author. Despite the plethora of references, there's nothing amounting to WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR. One ref about him opening an office. One blog ref about a book he wrote. Wikipedia is not for advertising and promotion. Tagishsimon (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note also Wikipedia's policy WP:OZD. Tagishsimon is requesting speedy deletion for upwards of 20 pages per day. --Avemaria81 (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This reads like a public relations page. There is no wide coverage and no reliable sources. It frankly reads like fluff to promote the subject. It does not meet standards for WP:GNG and fails WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR. I agree with the nom that Wikipedia is not the vehicle for a public relations effort to promote the subject. AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AuthorAuthor. I just added tons more reliable sources with substantial coverage. Do you still believe "There is no wide coverage and no reliable sources"? Also, I'm not sure how to change the tone from it sounding like a public relations page - do you have some suggestions or advice for me? I would appreciate it. I'm new at this. --Avemaria81 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Bearian's sentiments, reliable sources have now been added and I have changed my !vote.

Keep My vote is for keeping the page, for being notable. This is very discouraging. I worked hard on this article, but I understand this is part of the process. This morning I added several more citations to Smith's works, including WP:BASIC multiple reviews of his articles by the National Catholic Register, Catholicism.org, the Journal of the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire, and the New Evangelists Monthly journal, as well as citations to his lectures and courses through the Diocese of Baton Rouge. These citations were in addition to the links I added to his radio and podcast interviews. I had also added citations of his works and legal career by multiple newspapers, the Pointe Coupee Banner and Catholic Commentator. Smith has written over ten books of fiction and non-fiction. He has written more books than what I found, but I think I added the most notable titles. There were already other author sites pointing to Smith due to at least one collaboration with author Brian J. Costello - the addition of this page is a logical extension. What more can I add? I'm definitely invested in seeing this page survive now. Thanks! Avemaria81 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Policy points to WP:AUTHOR which this person does not seem to meet or even approach; and WP:GNG which, again, this author does not seem to meet or even approach. Not all authors - for obvious reasons - get wikipedia articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, policy begins with WP:BASIC. WP:BASIC provides a presumption of notability: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Smith meets this criteria, so he is presumed notable. To delete the page for lack of notability, this presumption must be overcome. To overcome the presumption of notability, WP:BASIC states that Smith "fall under exclusionary criteria". He does not. Presumption of notability stands. --Avemaria81 (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you believe meet the criteria of WP:BASIC? Please note that each source must meet all of the requirements of having significant coverage, being reliable, and being independent of the subject. And that there should be multiple such sources independent of each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I just added a bunch more that I found (makes you wonder why people are trying to delete this page, instead of improve it, right?): National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Catholicism.org, Big Pulpit, ChurchPop. These (a) multiple sources all have (b) significant coverage and are (c) reliable and (d) independent of the subject. --Avemaria81 (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sourcing is not significant - meaning it is not broad, deep, and independent. The coverage in sources is either in passing, or in sources connected to certain elements of the Roman Catholic church (a 19-year old article from a local newspaper about several national merit scholars, links and reviews in hard-core blogs, etc.). If there were multiple reviews in weekly/monthly diocesan papers, then I would change my mind. Please ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, Bearian, I just added another source from a weekly/monthly diocesan paper. There are even more "diocesan paper" sources in the Catholic Commentator archive I had previously included - are you asking for different dioceses or just multiple mentions? Also, I don't understand why the 3-4 references to Smith's articles in the National Catholic Register are not broad, deep, and independent. I've asked this before and no one will respond. Not only that, there are also other national and international - not just diocesan - sources like Aleteia and Catholicism.org, some of the world's largest Catholic sites. Thanks for the help, Bearian! --Avemaria81 (talk) 01:28, 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) 02:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. I am now satisfied that legitimate sources have covered this author. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback and support, Bearian! I kept trying to improve the page and was only receiving negative feedback until now. I really appreciate your help. --Avemaria81 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the references currently in the article:
- 1 (Catholic Commentator) is an article featuring several quotations from Mr. Smith. While this may indicate his prominence as a cultural commentator, it does not count towards the "significant independent coverage" requirement of the general notability guideline (that is, the article does not contain substantial information about Mr. Smith, apart from his own comments).
- 2 (Catholic Community Radio) and 3 (Catholic Commentator): I believe these are two copies of the same article; again, the article contains quotations from Mr. Smith, but only a small amount of material about him.
- 4 (Louisiana's Historic and Cultural Vistas) and 5 (WikiTree) are about Mr. Smith's ancestor and (as far as I can see) don't mention Mr. Smith.
- 6 (The Oklahoman) includes Mr. Smith's name in a list of students who have won scholarships; this isn't substantial, in-depth coverage of Mr. Smith.
- 7 (Holy Water Books) is a profile by the publisher of Mr. Smith's books. It's fine to use this sort of affiliated source for biographical facts, but it doesn't count towards the GNG because it isn't sufficiently independent.
- 8 (Pointe Coupee Banner) is a newspaper article profiling Mr. Smith. This is significant, independent coverage in a reliably published source. Y
- 9 (The Hidden Eucharist) is a blog post by Mr. Smith.
- 10 (The Hidden Manna) doesn't mention Mr. Smith, so far as I can tell.
- 11 (The Hidden Manna in The Lord of the Rings) is a blog post by Mr. Smith.
- 12 (Elves of Valinor) doesn't mention Mr. Smith.
- 13 (Lord of the Rings and the Eucharist) is a book by Mr. Smith.
- 14 (EWTN Homeschool Connections) is a profile of Kevin O'Brien that (as far as I can see) doesn't mention Mr. Smith or his book.
- 15, 17, 38 (Catholicism.org). Catholicism.org is the website of a canonically irregular Feeneyite group.[25] The local ordinary has told them to stop presenting themselves as Catholic.[26] I don't know whether a blog post on their website receives editorial oversight before publication (if not, it shouldn't be used in the biography of a living person, per WP:BLPSPS).
- 16, 18, 20, 27 (NCR) are directory-type listings of recommended blog posts, including entries by Mr. Smith. This isn't significant biographical coverage.
- 19, 29, 30 (Diocese of Baton Rouge) The URLs wouldn't load for me.
- 21 and 22 (New Evangelists Monthly): a blog post aggregator featuring writing by Mr. Smith, not about him.
- 23 (Aleteia) is an article by Mr. Smith.
- 24 (Big Pulpit) includes various directory-type listings of recommended blog posts, including entries by Mr. Smith.
- 25 (Catholic Exchange) is an article by Mr. Smith.
- 26 (Citizenside.com) is an article that cites Mr. Smith's blog, but doesn't contain significant coverage of him or it.
- 28 and 31 (ChurchPop) are articles by Mr. Smith.
- 32 (Clarifying Catholicism) is an article by Mr. Smith.
- 33 and 34 (Voyage Comics) are articles by Mr. Smith.
- 35 and 37 (Catholic Nerds Podcast) is a podcast co-hosted by Mr. Smith.
- 36 (The Station of the Cross) is a podcast episode on which Mr. Smith appears; it contains a brief introduction of Mr. Smith (as an author, award-winning blogger, and attorney), as well as interview comments by him.
- 39 (ChristianHorror.com/LifeDate Magazine) is a review of one of Mr. Smith's books. ChristianHorror.com is one of Mr. Smith's websites. I was unable to confirm that the review originally ran in LifeDate.
  I looked for additional sources such as magazine profiles, news articles, or book reviews, and didn't find anything useful. Cheers, gnu 57 23:35, 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) 01:26, 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) 03:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- as per gnu57 above, I am concerned about the lack of independent (i.e. non-Christian) sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per WP:HEY, I think it now passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after WP:HEY passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:23, 25 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 10:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live Design[edit]

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

I am pretty sure this doesn't meet WP:GNG and am sceptical whether this meets Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. While the history of the magazine has been written about, it only appears to have been written about in the magazine.

The sections on the trade show and master classes aren't really about the magazine, and the sources about them aren't in depth, reliable, independent coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep may be with some maintenance tags. Mr-5 / ^{M ✉ / C🖋} 15:52, 24 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) 02:08, 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) 01:27, 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) 03:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article which was accepted through WP:AFC and whose subsequent maintenance tags have been in place for almost 5 years without the issues being resolved. Much of the content is poorly-referenced brochureware for associated events. My searches are finding routine announcement coverage from the merger of previous name publications to recent events, but I am not seeing the coverage about Live Design itself necessary to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Live Design meets point 5 (are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets) of Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. Live performance design is a niche field and the magazine is certainly significant within it. In addition to sponsored content, they provide industry news and interviews with leading designers. For example, Ming Cho Lee meets wikipedia's notability criteria and Live Design covered him far more than general interest news source. Poor sourcing likely has a lot do with the small size of the design field. I'd recommend tagging with Expert-subject or bringing it to attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stagecraft. Bruce (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I did some research and found a college level textbook and a professional guide to the field that both cited Live Design as an important resource for professional stage managers, designers, and technicians. I also found several university libraries which listed the magazine as a key journal for students. Which I think supports my point about it beings a significant publication in a non-trivial niche market.

That said, I do have a bias. In addition to being a trade publication, Live Design publishes articles that are useful for the history of lighting design, obituraries about significant designers, and articles focusing on the technical design elements of high profile shows (Broadway, West End, and international tours). I'm working on adding a section on the field's history to the article on lighting design and the magazine is proving to be a useful source. (I don't have a WP:COI; though lighting is a small field, I don't personally know anyone who works at Live Design nor do I have any business interest in the company). Bruce (talk) 06:57, 22 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 10:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Marriner-Dodds[edit]

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

Not a single in-depth reference from a reliable, independent source. Searches turned up the reason why. There aren't any. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the "New Scientist" mention, no other notable sources. Blogs, websites etc. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and a little bit confused about why this page is up for deletion? I am not arguing either way, but I hope to learn from my mistakes going forward. I created two articles at the same time about similar people and using roughly the same amount of sources from the same places. One was approved immediately, but this one has been back and fourth from draft space to published space and is now being considered for deletion. There are independent references from news websites New Scientist, Forbes, ENWorld, Nerdbot, The Gamer, Geeknative, Tribality, and 80LV. There are also independent references from industry websites Board Game Geek and RPG Geek as well as appearances and interviews with Marriner-Dodds on podcasts Mammoth Gamescast, Game Store Prophets, and Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG Talk. I can understand why the podcast interviews and appearances may not count as good sources and I can remove those without an issue, but I do not understand why the others are not considered? Again I want to stress that I am NOT arguing in either direction for this article, but I'd really appreciate the chance to learn what I did wrong, and if possible to move the article back into draft space for continued improvements? Cllrphil 10:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cllrphil (talk • contribs)

Weak keep - there are some good sources, although experienced editors know that Forbes is basically a crappy blog on paper. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 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) 01:27, 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) 03:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep this gets into weird not-inherited arguments. In addition to the main source, the nerdbot and The Gamer sources are probably enough. Feel like PR bits mostly. eh. Hobit (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes nerdbot reliable? It's niche enough it doesn't have an entry. Likewise, The Gamer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamer pretty clearly has editorial control. [27]. Nerdbot claims editorial control [28]. Do you see any coverage you think is mistaken or otherwise have evidence either is not reliable? Hobit (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough to meet NBIO. Coverage is passing/niche. Designing a single game that hasn't won any major awards and getting a WP:INTERVIEW in few niche gaming zines or like does not make one encyclopedic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 24 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) 01:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Dhar (producer)[edit]

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

Non notable television producer with no evidence of satisfying either WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG. Sources cited in the article are interviews and announcement of him stepping down as MD. His only claim to notability is that, during his tenure at Endemol, the company produced a few shows including Bigg Boss and Khatron Ke Khiladi but they were adapted from foreign shows.` Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I won't say 'only'. Someone bringing an absolutely new concept (even if adopted) to television of a country of a Billion people - I think that's something (in my view). I also feel WP:GNG is passed with ease; however, it is ideal for other editors to participate and decide what's appropriate. Thanks for everyone's time on this in advance!

Palmsandbeaches (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palmsandbeaches In order to satisfy WP:GNG, sources have to be significant coverage, independent, reliable and cannot be WP:ROUTINE coverage. Most of the sources on the page are announcement and interviews which are not considered independent of the subject. He clearly fails WP:GNG.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHey Umakant Bhalerao! Good morning! You make a very interesting point indeed so I started reading more. WP:GNG - from what I read, doesn't seem to robustly question reliability/independence of interviews. Hence, I read further at WP:INTERVIEW - again, a great resource. From what I can conclude, interviews may or may not be independent/reliable etc. Most of the (like you rightly said), interviews, are in reliable sources seemed to be covered by in-house staff. I think what subject is saying about himself, would be considered as a primary source and hence is obligated to be ignored/omitted. But facts/information provided outside of that, and repeated by multiple other sources is still useful. In fact, I also read a para how content from primary sources could be used.

Also see,

"The longer and more detailed the material, and the more reliable the publication, the more likely secondary-source material in an interview is to have undergone proper fact-checking."

&

"An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. The material provided to the interview by the interviewer and the publication is secondary. The material provided by the interviewee may be primary, if the interviewee is speaking about their own life, or may be secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported."

Besides, the Forbes article is not an interview [29] It even says "Dhar declined to talk about his new venture, but sources close to him, said that he is up to “something big and exciting in the content space”." Yes, this is an announcement that puts us in WP:ROUTINE but this is change of leadership and a major announcement as against a trivial one. I don't think we can classify all 'announcements' as WP:ROUTINE as a rule. 'General Elections would be soon held', for example, is an announcement but I won't disregard it as a routine coverage (Let's say).

The nutshell statement of WP:INTERVIEW concludes it aptly: "Interviews generally count as primary sources, but commentary added to interviews by a publication can sometimes count as secondary-source material."

Thanks for your time on this!

Palmsandbeaches (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apologies that I didn't address the WP:FILMMAKER. I think the subject qualifies for criteria 3:

"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."

The shows the subject has created would surely be deemed significant and covered heavily :)

Palmsandbeaches (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the more important criteria is WP:GNG, and there is not enough significant coverage to pass that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:47, 24 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) 01:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samba on Your Feet[edit]

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

This is one of what may be several films related to Eduardo Montes-Bradley and created by a WP:COI editor over a period of years. The article doesn't make any claim to passing WP:NFILM. It's screened at several film festivals, but that in and of itself isn't something that would give notability. It also doesn't appear to have received any awards or reviews that would help it pass notability guidelines.

A search for sourcing didn't bring up anything to establish how this passes NFILM either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 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) 03:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:41, 24 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) 01:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Newton Lowry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mark Newton Lowry

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

The subject of this article meets neither the WP:BIO notability standards or the WP:NACADEMIC notability standards. Google search reveals only the subject's professional pages and his articles. The page was created by user gwaschbusch, whose only contributions have been to create pages for members of Pacific Economics Group and something that Pacific Economics Group works on, and who is a coauthor of the subject and an employee of Pacific Economics Group.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it also fails to meet the WP:BIO notability standards and the WP:NACADEMIC notability standards, and is also a page for a non-notable member of Pacific Economics Group created by the same employee of Pacific Economics Group:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Cicchetti without knowing that this AfD existed, but it's another Pacific Economics–related bio. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see citations sufficing for WP:NPROF C1, nor reviews for WP:NAUTHOR. The article is undersourced and otherwise in poor shape to the point that WP:TNT applies at the very least. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his publications do not rise to passing academic notability guideline 1, and nothing suggests he passes any other academic or other notability guidelines either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 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 no consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Thackeray[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemant Dabral (talk • contribs) 14:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG ,Editor of Saamana and Marmik.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. All of these sources talk about her husband, but nothing about this subject independent from her husband. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being related to a notable person does not make her notable.Serv181920 (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe articles below are about her rise in the Shiv Sena not about her husband.India Today and The Indian Express articles give WP:SIGCOV about her.Clearly passes WP:GNG from clearly WP:RS and independent sources below.

The articles below her about becoming the Editor of the Saamana and Marmik.Subject is the Editor of the Saamana the official newspaper of the Shiv Sena and one of the most prominent and influencial Marathi newspapers.Note the fact the newspaper is family/Party owned does not affect notabilty.

The subject is notable in her own right as the Editor of a notable newspaper Saamana and there is coverage about the subject in the Marathi Language also.Editorship is notable hence WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply herePharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Saamana and Marmik are not notable independent media outlets but mouthpieces of her family-run political party (Shiv Sena). Besides these publications the subject is not associated with any other independent news media. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 16:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG [30] is sufficient coverage on the subject for this purpose. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely non-notable individual who's notability depends on the mouthpieces published by her own family. Subject fails WP:INHERITED, and WP:NAUTHOR. desmay (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources listed above are all independent of the subject and provide significant coverage to her. Passes WP:GNG. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The India Today reference is truly in-depth and appears independent and reliable, and should put notability concerns to rest as well. The other references are good support an also appear to pass RS.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG. The above source cited by ChunnuBhai is aimed to provide coverage to Uddhav Thackeray than Rashmi. Shrikanthv (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on the notability. If the final decision rests on my comment then count me among the inclusionists. For people !voting delete, I cannot see why this content cannot survive on her husband's article. At worst, this page should be a redirect to Uddhav_Thackeray#Family as a valid search term and to meet the CC-SA obligations.Walrus Ji (talk) 18:53, 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 no consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of K-pop at Billboard in the 2020s[edit]

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

Unclear criteria for inclusion in the list, as it appears to just be a list of billboard articles. It contains information that is not deemed "notable" for the individual artist's page, which makes it all the more confusing as to why this separate page exists. Contains information that may be considered Fancruft ("1st artists on Carpool Karaoke," "1st concert at a U.S. rodeo," etc.) I propose either the deletion of this page, or a transformation into a more comprehensive "Timeline of K-pop in 2020" page, which would not exclusively refer to billboard and have solid criteria for inclusion (debuts, comebacks, etc.) Lukestepford (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Also adding[reply]

– Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Various K-Pop groups are covered in the media by various sources, unclear why their expected activities should all be lumped together and then limited to coverage by a single magazine. Each band's history should be on their own articles. K-pop#History could be expanded to the point of a subarticle with actual major genre-defining events, but why forbid sources others than Billboard, but include every bit of routine trivia that is in Billboard? Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both with a Strong keep for Timeline of K-pop at Billboard and a possible merging or renaming of Timeline of K-pop at Billboard in the 2020s. The older and more comprehensive list Timeline of K-pop at Billboard details historical magazine coverage of K-pop in the U.S. and the West for a couple of decades, when no other magazines or media were doing so. After more media started covering K-pop's explosion, post-BTS, I agree that the second list Timeline of K-pop at Billboard in the 2020s, which is almost a redundant history of the one group, might best be trimmed and merged into a single year on the first list. The novelty of the lists was pertinent to the almost exclusive reporting by Billboard and the impact K-pop made on the music scene in the West, including the Billboard charts.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand the merit of restricting the list to this one specific magazine, even if it was one of few magazines discussing K-pop in the West. That would indicate a lack of sources for a potential "Timeline of K-pop" list, but doesn't justify this page's existence in its current form. If Billboard's K-town magazine is the reason this page is so important, I'd propose merging the key events from this page into the history section of the Billboard K-Town page, especially considering most of the key events from the Timeline of K-pop at Billboard are already included in the history section. Lukestepford (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:IINFO, not to mention that the broader article is over 200 kb. A list of random events documented by a specific publications is not encyclopedic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep the main article, with some tweaking. This kind of genre-wide view is easier to navigate rather than having to look for information on each group's article but I agree that it needs some trimming and there is no need for a separate article for the 2020s. Maybe a more comprehensive list that does not only refer to Billboard could be a better solution. StepYoshi (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a merger into the yearly ___ in South Korean music page (2020 in South Korean music) make sense? What would qualify events for inclusion? Lukestepford (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A good suggestion, however, those yearly pages are only concise lists of "Debuting" and "Disbanding" and the mostly western-based event and chart history from these Timelines would not fit there, unless a massive global history was added along with it.

I still think a severe trimming (which I will offer to do) of the main Timeline, and re-adding the 2020s to it, is the best option. A review of some of the existing music timelines, here [31], show only one or two main sources. The repairs I suggest could include more outside sources being added, of which multiple abound, particularly about the charting; with a maintenance tag added to the page while this is ongoing.

But the main purpose of the Timeline was to document this magazine's consistent history of coverage and K-pop's growing relationship to the magazine's Billboard charts, however wrongly being sourced mostly from the magazine. In the early years, major music outlet Rolling Stone had a single small article [32] and western mainstream media had almost nothing until Psy's one hit contributed to the scene in 2012, followed by a steadier influx by BTS in the last part of 2016.

If a final consensus decides to delete both, I propose that it be trimmed and readded (which I will offer to do), as you suggested above, "merging the key events from this page into the history section of the Billboard K-Town page", which it stemmed from. Although I would consider moving page names, it suggests massive work to bring in global aspects and loses the intent.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the list of other timelines you've linked, there are only a few comparable articles (genre-specific list of events). One would be the Timeline of progressive rock, but that only includes debuts, releases, disbandments, and a few key events per year, which seems to not be the intent of the article. Another could be Timeline of punk rock, which contains similar information as the previous timeline (debuts, disbandments, releases, and a few key events per year). If those articles are used as precedent, it would seem to make sense to merge key events of the genre into the 2020 in South Korean music page by adding a few events per year to each year's page.

However, with regard to your initial intent, I don't know if there really are other sources that would "document this magazine's consistent history of coverage," which indicate that the topic of this article (to highlight Billboard Magazine's relationship with K-pop) fails to meet notability requirements. If the intent of this timeline is to document K-pop's breakthrough into the West, as @Bonnielou2013: mentioned, then it could potentially see key events moved into the Korean wave or K-pop articles, both of which have sections highlighting key events in this timeline. Lukestepford (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is precedent for a timeline article specifically on one publication's relationship with a particular topic. This information is probably best Moved to the history section of the Billboard K-Town page, in text form rather than a large table.

Keep with modifications, trimming down on trivial news items like who tweeted what and whose video hit 500 million views, these are not historical milestones. There are other similar timelines. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 17:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No there are not, please link. Other timelines are broader coverage and not arbitrarily limited to one news source. Reywas92^Talk 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and LaundryPizza with selective merge to K-pop/Korean music related articles noted above as possible targets. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will be the first to admit that this is a non-scientific vote - but I love the amount of information and detail provided here. There are hours of reading and further research here based on the links and sources provided. The effort expended is also impressive.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. This is a proper article with a proper spinoff. gidonb (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based votes please instead of just saying you line it
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Timeline of K-pop at Billboard. Cupper52^Discuss! 16:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but that article has much of the same issues as this one. For instance, unstandardized material ("2nd boy group guests on The Ellen DeGeneres Show," "1st BTS' member solo on Hot 100 chart," "3rd boy group performs on Good Morning America," etc.) and a sole source for the article (Billboard). Even if it was merged with a larger article, it's not clear to me that this meets the standards for a list, as thorough as both may be. Lukestepford (talk) 18:45, 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) 03:42, 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. Geschichte (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by total road tunnel length[edit]

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

WP:OR concerns. This feels like it should be a reasonable article topic, but I can't find sourcing that would justify it. There are a (very few) countries with government sources, but many of the (only 16) entries are sourced to Wikipedia lists of tunnels, or "The World's longest Tunnel Page" lists of tunnels (both likely incomplete. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no reliable sources that suggest this is an item anyone in any reliable source has evert grouped countries by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this clearly violates Wikipedia's core principles on verifiability (WP:V); that aside, I can see no evidence of notability; this does not pass WP:LISTN as far as I can see. Using other Wikipedia articles as a source, themselves probably incomplete, just creates a Chinese whispers effect and should be strongly discouraged. Ultimately, this should be deleted because there is no evidence of notability for the topic itself and the information is highly unlikely to be anywhere near accurate. Spiderone 15:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this comes down to ones philosophy of how articles should come about. Should articles be gradually improved until they become good, or should they spring into existence fully formed? If you look at back in the history of may good articles, you will see that many of them start out as woefully incomplete stubs. I think this is a topic that could result in a good article in theory, but I agree that the list as it currently is is incomplete and therefore could be misleading. I think many articles in this state deserve to be kept because they have the potential to grow into something good as more editors contribute to it. That said, this article has existed for quite a while without any further growth, so it does not look improbable that it would just stay as it currently is. Amaurea (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is mainly WP:OR, fails WP:V and there are not sources discussing this as a group. I like the article and thought this would be an easy keep, but I couldn't find anything to satisfy N or V. If there are multiple RS showing this is discussed as a group and can verify the information, ping me and I will switch my !vote. // Timothy :: talk 19:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for, among other things, putting figures from different years for different countries in one table, from 2000 to 2020, and then ranking them. That makes absolutely no sense. There is no light at the end of these tunnels. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See nothing essential on this article for maintaining a stand-alone list. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:28, 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) 01:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell, Modoc County, California[edit]

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

Can't quite figure out what this one was, but I don't think it meets WP:GEOLAND. Topos show two buildings at a crossroads in the middle of nowhere. Newspapers.com search for results from Modoc County, CA only brings up names. Google Books brought up a single result for a perlite kiln, but I couldn't tell if this place or Campbell, California was the location being referred to. No evidence GEOLAND is met, and WP:GNG isn't. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with the hundreds of others put through AfD recently, not a shred of notability Spiderone 16:36, 24 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) 15:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep and earnings[edit]

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

Another good example of WP:NOTESSAY. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an odd essay with a point to make, not an article. FalconK (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not neutral and not capable of being made neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm gobsmacked by the awfulness. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 23:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I REALLY want to be generous and offer a redirect because the subject the article is important to industrialization and HR management, but each section goes a completely different direction (is it a health article? a general society article? a business article?). Plus the lede makes the connection between wage and sleep, so I'd expect actual numbers with sleep hours/$, organized by country or industry etc. I'm not sure if some of it could be used in Sleep hygiene or Circadian rhythm, but those are also veering into medical territory and require tip-top refs. Estheim (talk) 13:27, 22 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 Janat. Selective merge to Janat, minus the promotional material. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janat Dores[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Janat. Does fail WP:GNG, but the information in this article might be valuable as a history of the teahouse he founded. Minus the promotional language, of course. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke the spam and merge with Janat Java Hurricane 06:39, 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. Geschichte (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike DeJohn[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOX. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that WP:NBOX is met. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems clear that WP:NBOX is not met. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:32, 22 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. After two relistings, the consensus leans towards keep, but not by much. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lonely (fashion label)[edit]

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

Not sure the article should have been approved in the first place but have come across it now that the owners are in the news. Don't believe the Company/Fashion Label meets WP:COMPANY and doesn't have enough for WP:GNG. Page didn't have a lot on it and now has section that is all about the crazy owners, which even if it is decided as keep, I am going to thin out. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 08:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 08:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 08:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 08:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 08:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The Forbes piece is written by a contributor.Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was an early brand featuring diverse models, which added to discussions around this issue. It continues to be a brand that prompts coverage about textiles ethics. I have expanded the page. SunnyBoi (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is significant coverage. Passes notability wp:GNG. Coverage in The Guardian and Elle are from credible publications. Peter303x (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage seems adequate to me to pass WP:GNG. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:20, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John "Dino" Denis[edit]

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

Subject is a boxer. Fails WP:NBOX for not having any world title (IBF), (WBA) (WBC), WBO), or NYSAC nor been ranked by IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO, or The Ring magazine. Subject also fails GNG as the fight records are merely routine coverage. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for boxers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:47, 24 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) 01:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Copeland[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO for not any top tier promotion fights. Fails GNG as report of the fights are merely routine coverage. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He fought for UFC 6-2 (I linked source in article) and the heavyweight tournament (Equivalent to a title) in PFL. I believe the combination of that should be enough to meet first criteria and fought many times for WSOF. WSOF was a top tier organization back in its day as many fighters have fought for titles in UFC. Mw52860 (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commmet To pass WP:MMABIO notability guidelines, the mma fighter needs to have at least 3 fights under tier one (ufc) promotion and not only 2 - see here-1. Secondly, World Series of Fighting (WSOF) changed its name to Professional Fighters League (PLF) - see here-2 and here-3and under WP:MMATIER guidelines, WSOF/PLF is under second tier promotion and has never been a top tier promotion. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copeland had only two top tier fights, both losses, so he fails to meet WP:NMMA. The source the article referenced was for Jared Rosholt, not Josh Copeland. Copeland was mentioned in that article because Rosholt had defeated him (by TKO). I have modified the article to correct his fight record and set up a link to Copeland's fight history at sherdog. There's a lack of significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG and nothing indicates he meets WP:ANYBIO. Papaursa (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the MMA inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above arguments, doesn't pass WP:MMABIO. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but at this point in their career, I doubt it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:32, 24 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) 01:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mace Milly[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest claim here is of the "got X number of clicks on a social media platform" variety, which is not an "inherent" notability freebie in any human occupation, and everything else here is pure PR bumf. And for sourcing, almost everything here is footnoted to unreliable blogs, concert listings calendars and streaming content on YouTube or Spotify, which are not notability-supporting sources -- the only footnote here that even starts to put a foot on the correct road is a very short article in a limited circulation local magazine called "Hollywood Weekly", which isn't widely distributed enough to singlehandedly get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only useful source on offer. Musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find one singular reference that passes reliability and independence, which still could be argued. The subject passes none of the criteria in WP:SINGER and definitely does not meet WP:GNG. Also very suspicious of self-publishing, as the creator of this article has only made a couple of edits which are all on, or relating to, this subject. Coreykai (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:29, 24 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) 15:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar M. Baine odometer tampering scheme[edit]

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

I'll be honest to say I found this I was looking through the creator's contributions after they filed an ANI report about an unrelated incident. I was absolutely shocked to see this passed an AfD nine months ago. This clearly fails WP:CRIME as a routine prosecution that nine months later has received absolutely no additional coverage, failing the sustained element of WP:NOTNEWS. There are also clear WP:BLP1E issues with the article. Typically the rule is to wait a year after a keep AfD, but the problems here are so flagrant it's not worth waiting three months. SportingFlyer T·C 01:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 01:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 01:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Creator) after reading it and knowing more about Wikipedia editing, yeah, go ahead and delete. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link to previous AfD (under different title): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States v. Baine and Savarese Schazjmd (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a run-of-the-mill crime and fails WP:EVENTCRIT; no sign it is a "landmark" as two of the keep voters in the previous AFD claimed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:52, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hart (radio personality)[edit]

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

BLP of a radio personality of fairly local renown. Tagged for notability for nearly ten years. Does not pass WP:BIO. Mccapra (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single-market local radio personalities aren't automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist: the notability test requires that they work for a national network (e.g. Matt Galloway) and/or that they have enough reliable source coverage in sources independent of their own employers to pass WP:GNG (e.g. Dave Bookman.) But this passes neither of those tests: he's never worked for a national network, and the article is referenced entirely to the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations rather than any evidence of third party media coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 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.