Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 03	December 05 >

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 keep. Missvain (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulus Networks[edit]

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

Only sources are industry press and blogs. No in-depth features in independent organisations, therefore it's WP:NCORP fail Ch1p the chop (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ch1p the chop (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulus Networks was just acquired by NVidia: https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/04/nvidia-acquires-cumulus-networks/ - I am not sure how that helps or not the discussion. But the company did create a strong open source operating system for ethernet switches and was acquired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.8.251 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage, including but not limited to Nvidia acquisition to merit NCORP — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does the coverage of the Nvidia acquisition cover the subject in any significant depth? Or does the RS coverage focus on the acquisition itself?Ch1p the chop (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The WSJ article actually appears to be a blog which has a 404 error. I found an archived version here but it's an archive of a paywall. Perhaps we could consider merging as a WP:ATD? Ch1p the chop (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is reasonably wells-sourced, and meets the notability criteria for a company article in the English Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. What is independent or reliable is not significant and vice-versa. The only RS coverage is completely ordinary WP:MILL coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:09, 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) 23:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In particular, developing an open-source operating system for network switches and 32 percent of the Fortune 50 companies used the Cumulus Linux operating system in their data centers in 2017 jump out to me as going beyond WP:MILL. Finding reliable sources about Bay Area software startups is challenging, but not impossible: Googling reveals a TechCrunch article (from a staff writer, per WP:RSP) about the Nvidia acquisition. jp×g 06:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good support by what appear to be reliable sources, and the company appears to be a leader in its field. Good coverage in news articles specific to this field.--Concertmusic (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has good sources but if you delete this one than take a look at the Networking companies of the United States category and delete half of them because they all have the same format.--TerrellTrevon (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I made some edits to replace primary sources with independent third party sources, and reworded the article to make it less promotional. Per WP:ORGIND, the included sources show that "unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it". As part of the coverage, research firm Gartner has recognized the company for its efforts to transition the data center industry to open source servers, away from hardware running on proprietary operating systems. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs improvement but enough coverage for WP:ORG KylieTastic (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Sabharwal[edit]

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

Not a notable actor and does not satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR. Has worked in a few television shows and received some coverage for the same. No notable roles played by him in multiple notable shows. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NACTOR is poorly fulfilled, I agree. The subject may be simply WP:TOOSOON, but notability is not temporary, whereas that can be questioned here... and the article is also quite short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreykai (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I kind of thought it was WP:TOOSOON but what prompted me to create an article was his role Bin Kuch Kahe and at Dil Tuteya movie. But yes, even I had doubts while creating it! Palmsandbeaches (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NACTOR, and certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG. A redirect to the tv series article, Bin Kuch Kahe, would be acceptable.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I took a look at the sources, and none of them really rise to the level of in-depth coverage. I agree that this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Slashme (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bengal Lancers![edit]

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

Really? an unmade film with one article about it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreleased films can be notable but I'm not seeing any evidence that this one justifies an article Spiderone 18:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see notability around here. The Independent piece is great, and that's the only reliable source. IMDb and Youtube are not reliable of course, and the British Film Institute page is trivial. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few more pieces. I think with this cast and that director it is notable Dutchy85 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss If the "fraud" had more coverage it would be notable, I'm not sure I see notability yet, almost. 02:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
It starred some quite major names - Chris lee, Michael York, Trevor Howard - would that not qualify?Dutchy85 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dutchy85. To answer your question, no. Despite the well known names, notability isn't inherited and the article must stand on it's own...not by who is in it. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the notable cast, the fact filming started and the controversy surrounding it, I think it's sufficiently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be notable, in its own right (see WP:NRV).Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not seeing any notability here, but also I find it difficult to see how we can have a good article on a film that was abandoned during filming. --Bduke (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An abandoned film, with no indication the film is notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Spiderone and others.Nickm57 (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly, since this is an interesting and well-written article. But the sources are pretty lacking, and it doesn't look like there is going to be more coverage anytime soon. jp×g 06:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Vanner[edit]

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

Fails GNG, fails WP:ENT - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete her roles in film and other places were not significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of this stuff seems terribly significant. Five WP:MILL sources, a search did not find more. No real coverage. Her cover of "Tainted Love" is pretty good, though. jp×g 06:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest buildings and structures in Derry[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group or set. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, List is composed of 3 buildings, 2 steeples, and 1 structure, only two of which have articles, there is nothing there that can assist in navigation. // Timothy :: talk 23:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 23:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 23:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not only that, but the tallest building proper is only 11 stories. And it's sourced entirely to someone else's DB. I see no good reason for this list. Mangoe (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 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. Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. The only thing available is routine coverage in Emporis. Thirdly, I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Derry' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources. Spiderone 10:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication the "group or set is notable," Jeepday (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. I love Derry Girls, which I've just started to watch. That having been said, this list fails every element of my standards for lists of skyscrapers: only two notable buildings, in a city not known for its tourism, none of them over 600 feet, and the list doesn't make sense. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if 85 feet gets you on a six-member list of tallest buildings, I don't think it's a very illustrious list. Also, this doesn't seem like a very salient category of things to be having a list article for. jp×g 06:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. We've had several of these recently, and I can't see how a city with only 4 buildings over 30 m tall merits a list article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - nothing here shows article merit. KylieTastic (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Muzaffarov[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single sentence article about a footballer with no demonstrated notability. jp×g 06:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He does play in the top flight of Uzbek football, which is fully professional, so that part of PROD failed. I can't speak to notability, however.--Concertmusic (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any sources covering this footballer in detail, failing WP:GNG, also, no evidence of playing in a league listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL Spiderone 14:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as FK Kokand 1912 is a team from Uzbekistan Super League which is listed at WP:FPL under Top level leagues which are not fully professional. KylieTastic (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bell and Bowles[edit]

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

I can't find any references for this article, the existing reference is unrelated and the external link isn't particularly related either. As such, it's not possible to prove that this museum/collection actually exists. Mike Peel (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be an WP:AUTOBIO, non-notable. Jumpytoo Talk 20:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks the sourcing in WP:RS to suggest notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. It's scheduled to be opened in 2025, so I'm sure it will warrant an article then. Until then, two guys planning on opening a museum with their 13 motorcycles doesn't strike me as notable, and the sourcing is quite lacking. Although it seems cool. jp×g 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Hot Doughnuts[edit]

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

The only actually reliable source is the article in the Age, which is not about this eating place, but a later one on the same site. DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even though the place mentioned in the Age article is a replacement it still has a significant history. Deus et lex (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like a local WP:RUNOFTHEMILL outlet. Geschichte (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it's not, it has a long history in the area. It is not a "run of the mill" outlet. Deus et lex (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unless there is sourcing for the long history this is just assertion and OR. Are there sources for this that meet the GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sources here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The shop was also the subject of a short film here. Hopefully this satisfies the need for sources, @Spartaz:. People seriously need to do a WP:BEFORE search. Deus et lex (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deus et lex's sources. The Business Insider and Sydney Morning Herald articles are especially strong. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even with the added sources, I would still say to delete. trivial material about a local business. We keep having this problem with articles of food providers, that people LIKE them. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - DGG, I have to thoroughly disagree here. It's pretty difficult to get a single store getting that much external coverage. This is not a trivial article, it is a well known retail icon in Melbourne's history and the sources support that. I agree that most individual stores do not meet Wikipedia notability standards, but this one does. I have had no involvement in this article at all, so this is not a WP:LIKE suggestion. My point is that this clearly meets GNG and you should not have nominated it for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In the scheme of an encyclopedia the listing of a now defunct business is Run-of-the-mill. The article is tagged as having promotional wording. This would be identifiable with such wording as the much loved business's future and Even to this day, Olympic Hot Doughnuts has left a substantial legacy on Footscray, surrounding suburbs and Melbourne as a whole, with multiple Facebook fan pages for the former business still active.[citation needed] Please note: This would be a great place for a regional citation to advance notability. I am sure Mr Tsiligiris is a great person but there is a slippery slope argument (average business) to be considered other than the Wikipuffery. As a local and now defunct business I can't see how this would not fall under what Wikipedia is not| which was a local business in a suburb with around 16,000 people receiving local and community media attention, as opposed to regional and especially not national or international. Otr500 (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I ask the closing nominator to note that this user clearly hasn't read the material or any of the discussion above. The fact they refer to "article" suggests they haven't even considered the multiple other sources that I have found that talk about the business, show it is not defunct, it has been replaced by a new owner with the same name, and the fact it has made the state newspaper (not just a local paper - The Age is one of the most well-known newspapers in Australia) and various other sources - this is NOT a run of the mill outlet. It clearly meets GNG. WP:YELLOWPAGES is completely irrelevant to this article - it is not a directory listing with phone numbers, etc. The sources talk about the history of the business and its place as an iconic Melbourne business. I really get tired of having to explain things like this in AfD debates where people don't read things. Deus et lex (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply concerning comments of Deus et lex: All of my neutral gender singular personalities did open a tab for each of the citations "you all" added. Now I think all one of you (still singular I presume) confused this AFD with another. The mundane news reporting of the subject title shows the business is not "a new owner with the same name". The lead states "was a local business" indicating it is now closed. The heraldsun article states "the shop would remain closed". A link on that page has the title "Famed doughnut shop shuts down". Each of the eight images in the "Broadstreet" source has a big red caption stating PERMANENTLY CLOSED. Another heraldsun source has the title Footscray’s famous Olympic Doughnuts will not reopen. Yet another "heraldsun" source states "Owner of Dad and Dave’s cafe Russell Karim opened Footscray Doughnuts and Coffee" mentioned as being the new "leaseholder".

Concerning "this subject", clearly a defunct local business (as evidenced by the multiple mundane news and business reporting provided by Deus et lex) and as indicated in the article, I do not think the sources mentioning the business, the "previous owner", nor the clear demise of the subject (Olympic Hot Doughnuts), as notable (historical or otherwise) for encyclopedic inclusion as a stand alone article. I would suggest rechecking which AFD "you all" are commenting on before giving a solicitation to a closer to discount my comments. As an WP:ATD maybe the subject would be better suited included in another title like Footscray railway station or Footscray, Victoria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)

Your comment doesn't make any sense. The other article shows it has reopened under new owners. But apart from that (and even if I had got that wrong), you have again shown that you don't read what anyone is saying. The business has received external coverage from the state newspapers (and a number of different sources), not just local papers. It is NOT mundane and the claim it is just a business listing is completely untrue. How many times do I need to explain that? Deus et lex (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing moderator - I ask that not much weight be given to Otr500's comments. They do not show that he has read the sources. The fact that a business has closed (the only claim Otr500 really makes) is not a reason for deletion. This is not a business listing, it is a clear case where GNG applies and a strong exception to articles not being kept on shops. This business has a clear strong history and where WP:NOTPAPER applies. Deus et lex (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Look, in the abstract, having an article about a defunct donut shop seems silly. But the fact of the matter is that there is clearly significant media coverage about this. While I personally find articles about defunct local businesses to be silly, I don't think we can delete this article given the current showing of sources/coverage. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the key failure here is WP:AUD "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The coverage for the article is local, and there are no incoming links from articles. Most of the news articles are brief and local. I am not familiar with all the sources, but they appear local to me. Jeepday (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Jeepday, did you read the articles I posted earlier that confirm the notability of this subject? They are far from brief, and they are definitely not local. The Age (for example) is one of Melbourne (and Australia)'s major newspapers. You must read the whole of the discussion before commenting. Deus et lex (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I do not see that the Age article qualifies to create notability. While it is a regional paper, the subject of the article is within 10KM of downtown Melbourne. So it is still local coverage. Jeepday (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - The Age is a major state newspaper for the city of Melbourne. This is NOT local coverage. Local coverage would be the relevant Footscray local newspaper, which this isn't. And you haven't even considered the other articles. I'd ask you to please reconsider your !vote, it is just founded on incorrect guesswork that isn't true. I have listed countless sources above that show that this place is notable. Deus et lex (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-supported by good sources. There appears to be enough notability to make the cut for me, and it's a nice piece of 'folklore' - a good encyclopedia piece in my mind.--Concertmusic (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the subject of the article is covered at length in multiple independent reliable sources. The ROTM argument fails here: if this were one of a thousand food trucks or similar that were all covered in this detail by multiple newspapers, that would be different, but there's a reason why this one got so much attention. If the article needs improvement, it can be fixed. Deletion isn't a replacement for quality improvement. --Slashme (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think it just passes the bar for coverage. KylieTastic (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our job as editors, and as AfD voters, is not to decide whether the subject of an article is respectable -- it's to decide whether it's notable, by reviewing its coverage in reliable third-party sources. That's present here. Who cares if it's silly or stupid? Politicians can be quite silly and stupid, and we still have articles about them! jp×g 01:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, calling The Age "local media" is perhaps the dumbest take I have ever seen at AfD. Clear-as-day GNG pass, we do not delete articles for being about silly subjects. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Tomorrow's Parties Festival lineups[edit]

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

There are so many issues with this ludicrously broad directory article that it's hard to know where to start. I will try to summarise my arguments and relate them to Wikipedia policies as much as possible.

WP:LISTN - this is not covered significantly by reliable sources independent of the subject although you can find sources for some (e.g. [1] and [2])
WP:IINFO/WP:RAWDATA - Wikipedia is not an exhaustive directory of every single act that has ever taken to the stage at a concert
WP:LISTPURP - this list is not a valuable information source, it does not assist in navigation and it does not aid in development of the encyclopaedia
WP:SALAT - I don't believe that this list meets the principles outlined here; it's too broad to have any encyclopaedic value and I do not personally believe that it contributes effectively to this great encyclopaedia
WP:ATD - I would strongly oppose any attempt to merge this article, because of its size, and I can't think of an obvious redirect target
Previous consensus on similar articles has resulted in delete, delete, delete and redirect. Spiderone 23:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft at its worst (or best?). This belongs to some fan page or an archives site of the All Tomorrow's Parties (if there is any), not here. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. This is not really something that warrants a list. jp×g 06:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an unscientific vote - it is based on the fact that there has been a lot of work and effort put into this list over the years by a number of different contributors. In addition, my threshold for lists is very low and simple - does it lend itself to getting to more information quickly and easily by having good wikilinks - and this list passes that bar without trouble.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There surely has to be a better place for this than a general encyclopaedia. I respect that a lot of editors have added to this list but it does not make the topic notable and it's the notability of this topic that's up for debate here. Spiderone 18:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NOTDIR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR. --Slashme (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Rockford, Illinois[edit]

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

There are no tall buildings in Rockford and none under construction.

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.
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Emporis and Skyscraperpage do not constitute significant coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Rockford' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
No significant high-rise building under construction so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The city is not the largest in Illinois nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building being taller than 30m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in Chicago so why are we doing it here?
This currently violates WP:NOTMIRROR as the article mostly mirrors Emporis.

Similar AfDs for reference: List of tallest buildings in Amherst, Massachusetts and List of tallest buildings in Thunder Bay Spiderone 22:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree to disagree on several points. Under WP:LISTPURP, this list page still fulfills an informational purpose (perhaps more so than an navigational one), I do concede that it does need its source information attended to (experts on the subject, perhaps?); however, List of tallest buildings in Chicago uses nearly exactly the same sources. In terms of city notability, this is the largest city in IL that is NOT Chicago (or its suburbs). If we were to start taking apart every similar like this, the Lists of tallest buildings in the United States template would be left only with Chicago and New York City, which defeats its purpose. --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between this list and Chicago is ultimately coverage. 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. Spiderone 10:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the building have minor local articles about them, but I don't see anything that meets WP:LISTN "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" Jeepday (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, NLIST, and Jeepday. This list fails every element of my standards for such lists: nothing over 17 stories, only one or two notable buildings, in a city known for trivia more than tourism, and a standalone list that does not make sense to me. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per then above, does not appear to meet WP:NLIST.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foxwood, California[edit]

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

This is a gated community within the Lake Almanor Peninsula CDP. I don't see any notability in its own right: on the maps it's difficult to pick it out from the adjacent neighborhood. Mangoe (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in the article, google news says "No results found for "Foxwood, California" -wikipedia." Jeepday (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; blatant failure of all applicable guidelines Spiderone 11:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Plumas County, California or Lake Almanor Peninsula. The putative coordinates go to the middle of someone's back yard, completely contained within the census-designated place Lake Almanor Peninsula. The only source for a "Foxwood, California" existing at all is GNIS and a sea of automatically generated sites, featuring gems like: Foxwood, California Facts for Kids - Kids encyclopedia facts, hair surgeries: Foxwood, California(CA) in Plumas county, Where To Buy CBD Oil In Foxwood, Plumas County, California?, and my personal favorite, Local Deals & Coupons. See 0 deals in Foxwood, California. Wowie zowie! I will really miss out on those zero deals, but that's the price we pay for encyclopedic accuracy. jp×g 01:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mememe[edit]

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

Non notable organization who falls short of WP:ORG & do not meet any criterion from WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. I would have used the A7 speedy delete but I feel a G4 might be imperative in future. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced stub. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a one-sentence stub that completely lacks sources that establish why this store is notable.TH1980 (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found this but the rest is just social media posts Spiderone 23:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources given in article, and only ones that can be found are Spiderone's source and [3] which reads like a social media post and probably isn't reliable. Not notable. Pahunkat (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only are there no sources to demonstrate notability, I'm not sure there's even any attempt to claim it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear notable and no sources are available Garnarblarnar (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Huntsville, Alabama#Hospitals. Missvain (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crestwood Medical Center[edit]

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

This article is about a rather small hospital and it the only references in it primary. I could not find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE except for name drops in hospital directories and the usual trivial mentions in articles about COVID-19 that all local hospitals seem to be getting right now. So, this doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG due to lacking multiple in-depth reliable sources about it. Aside from that, according to some people the notability threshold for hospitals is 500 beds. Which this doesn't meet either. So, it fails all the standards for notability. Even the non-guideline based ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This hospital has a trauma center and is a notable regional hospital. Research needs to be done to find the sourcing in local and state references before deleting it. See the revised Hospital notability guidelines in the Project Tutorial page. WP:HOS -- Talk to G Moore 15:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must have missed the part where I said I did research and wasn't able to find sources. Your free to look for any between now and when this is closed, but if none that meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT can be found by then it will likely be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is not WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and in depth. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT and does not meet the criteria for hospitals at WP:HOS essay (which states the article must be ORGCRIT). Two sources in article are 1) to the login page of the American Hospital Association, but from the URL appears to be a database entry; 2) a 404 page on the subject website. There is routine, mill, local coverage, nothing that meets guidelines for hospital notability. // Timothy :: talk 15:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some content to Huntsville, Alabama#Hospitals, unless additional references supporting notability can be added (ideally during this discussion). It seems appropriate and necessary to consider Alternatives to deletion here (see WP:IGNORINGATD). The hospital notability guidelines notes "hospitals that do not meet all parts of this standard do not qualify for a stand-alone article, and should instead be described in the country/state list of hospitals and in a section on healthcare or emergency services in their hometown articles or parent organization, with suitable redirects from the hospital's name." A redirect under the hospital name will serve to bring readers to basic information about the hospital, whereas deletion is an unnecessary overreaction to apparently insufficient notability. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, and I think its shared by other people, merges are usually only good when there is reliable secondary sources but just not enough to show notability. Which isn't met in this case. Id be fine a redirect though. Otherwise, if you merged badly sourced material you'd just be making the target article less encyclopedic. Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the article about Huntsville in support of Mdewman6's vote above. This article has some good details but is short enough not to clutter up the larger Huntsville article. If a couple of better sources could be added, that would certainly help.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Compelling source analysis Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobroker.com[edit]

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

Pure WP:ADMASK, WP:PROMO. Just another startup page without having any encyclopedic value. Qualifies WP:TOOSOON. Hence, calling for an AfD. - Hatchens (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article needs a major cleanup, almost to the point of WP:TNT, but there are a couple of proper RS references and it does sound like a significant enough tech venture to warrant an article, as long as the promo fluff — which currently makes up much/most of the article — is removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs some clean-up by removing anything promotional. I also found some reliable sources which talk about it, its products and acquisitions: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references provided above are interview style where the founder can say pretty much anything and fail WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. The others in the list are routine and trivial announcement of partnerships, hiring staff and product launches that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The other 15 references in the article are in a similar state, even one which is pure advertising, Why you need NoBroker that fails WP:ORGIND as another interview style report with the lines “Tenants have been paying brokerage year on year without seeing .... states the CEO. All in all, it is a generic property site of which there is millions. It entirely generic. It fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS as well as WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 12:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: After a major clean-up the article can remain. Some of its content sounds like an advertisement so that definitely needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophicalscientist (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Five references have been taken from the site: Lets examine the rest:

* [10] This one has smiling image of Akhil Gupta (left) and Amit Agarwal (right), suggesting it a press-release.

* [11] All brokers get automatically banned from the site,” shares Amit Kumar Agarwal, Co-founder and CEO, NoBroker, who is an alumnus of premium schools IIT Kanpur and IIM Ahmedabad. Fails WP:ORGIND.

* [12] "We see this as a right opportunity to expand our presence in other cities as well," its Chief Executive Amit Agarwal told PTI here. Fails WP:ORGIND.

* [13] Forbes. Non-Rs. Deprecated.

* [14] Small profile listing the company.

* [15] Times of India. "We strongly believe that technology can disrupt this market." Amit Agarwal, founder and CEO of NoBroker, said the reason people trust brokers is for getting documentation such as rent agreement and for assurance on the new tenant. Fails WP:ORGIND.

* [16] Super low quality Techcrunch. “We feel that a peer-to-peer chain has to happen,” Agarwal, formerly with PWC and ANZ Bank, told TechCrunch in an interview Fails WP:ORGIND.

* [ttps://www.forbesindia.com/article/checkin/nobroker.com-ventures-into-property-resale/41409/1] Forbes. Deprecated.

I will not go into the rest. Rest assured, not a single reference is secondary in nature. All of them are press-releases or interview style article. Fails [{WP:ORGIND]], WP:SIRS, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 17:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never noticed the ones above. Lets look at the first three that should establish notability.
[17] Saurabh Garg, co-founder and Chief Business Officer of NoBroker.com, said: “We are happy to scale up our offerings on co-living houses and combine our synergies with OYO LIFE to provide safe, hygienic, affordable, and fully managed accommodation to young professionals. Fails WP:ORGIND.
[18] “In the last 15 days, number of enquiries have jumped up considerably. A lot of them are looking to upgrade themselves to a bigger house,” said Amit Kumar Agarwal, co-founder and CEO, Nobroker.com This fails WP:ORGIND.
[19] ... painting, repair & maintenance, to preparing the rent agreement, finding new tenants when the previous tenants vacate and organising home visits for prospective tenants, led to the launch of this rental guarantee service six months ago” said Amit Agarwal, co-founder and CEO, NoBroker.com' This fails WP:ORGIND.

All these references show is that the owner can say anything they want, as long as they paying for it. They are all dependent sources, fails WP:SIRS as well. They are junk. scope_creep^Talk 17:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round but I'm leaving towards delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A News search turns up numerous citations of data provided by this company in articles about Bangalore's housing market. This seems to lend itself to a positive notability argument. The article is well written and uses available supporting sources - I think it may be difficult to find true secondary sources for a real estate venture.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the lengthy comments above listing questionable sources, a cursory search finds several good ones: an Entrepreneur.com article (by a staff editor), two separate Economic Times articles (both by staff editors), and an April TechCrunch article (by a staff writer with previous bylines at VentureBeat, CNBC, The Outline, CNET, and Mashable).

All of these articles are primarily about the subject. They are not passing mentions, the company is the primary focus of the article.
All of these articles are written by uninvolved parties. They are all from staff writers and editors employed by the publications. None of them are "press releases" or contributor blogs. WP:ORGIND criteria for source independence do not consider the presence of a "smiling photo" of a company's founders to be evidence of "vested interest". News articles about a subject typically feature photos of them, and quotes from them; this is not the same thing as "churnalism" and does not indicate a financial conflict of interest.
All three of the sites I mentioned are reliable sources -- I've searched WP:RSP and the noticeboard archives. There is no consensus to claim otherwise.
Moreover, in respect to scope_creep's two assertions above, Forbes is not a deprecated source; the entry for Forbes at WP:RSP says "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable ." The deprecation applies to contributor blogs only, for which the RSP entry says "Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor". The byline in this case is "Shruti Venkatesh, Forbes India Staff". RSP does not apply.

Now, most of the sources listed by scope_creep are indeed shoddy and shouldn't be in the article; and for this reason, they also shouldn't affect our assessment of GNG (it's an Indian company, so there's probably coverage that isn't in English). However, I think the sources I found are sufficient to establish notability on their own. And this isn't exactly a WP:MILL company either: "In September 2020, a mob of angry local brokers attacked the company’s office in Bangalore, to protest being excluded from the company's platform.[13][14]" This seems pretty out of the ordinary, doesn't it? jp×g 03:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the sources that User:JPxG posted above:

The article at [20] is a press-release. More so it fails WP:ORGIND as it is interview style article. ::
Looking at this: [21] “We are going ahead with the bonuses and looking to hire people with 4-5 years of experience. We think enough talent is available in the market and in the coming days, we want to increase our market share,” said Akhil Gupta, co-founder and CTO, Nobroker.com.' This also fail WP:ORGIND as an interview style article. More so, it WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial coverage salary increases.
The third one: [22] Akhil Gupta, Co-Founder & CTO at Nobroker said, "At NoBroker, we leverage the latest technologies to provide a top notch real-estate experience Fails WP:ORGIND as a well as being completely banal in its approach. Every company uses the latest technology.
This one: [23] India’s NoBroker raises an additional $30M from General Atlantic In a joint interview with TechCrunch, NoBroker’s founders Amit Kumar Agarwal, Akhil Gupta, and Saurabh Garg said the investment is an “endorsement” to the faith General Atlantic, its biggest investor, sees in the startup. The new capital will also give enough runway to NoBroker, they said Not only does it fail WP:CORPDEPTH as routine trivia about monies raised but it is fails WP:ORGIND as an interview style article. All of them fail WP:SIRS and all of them fail WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 10:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This article has been improved since the nomination. From the time of improvements, there was no support for deletion. Yet even if disregarding the change over time, general consensus was to keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Casar[edit]

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

WP:BLP, referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, of a person notable only as a city councillor. As always, this is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees a person an article in and of itself -- at this level of office, the bar that a person has to clear to qualify for a Wikipedia article is that they've been the subject of enough nationalizing reliable source coverage in real media to credibly claim that they're significantly more notable than most other city councillors. But this only cites content self-pubished by his own city's government, which is not what it takes. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if he were notable, the content of the article is so poor we'd still have to delete or at least draftify this article on BLP grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 14:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete city council members are not default notable and the sourcing here is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but primary sources and basic election coverage, insufficient to support a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. Austin is a state capital but is not a world-class city, for which notability would be automatic. I would be willing to "adopt" this - ping me before deleting. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added additional information to the article that may help address the primary sources and credibility issues. Terracottaplant1990 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please assess the updates to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE and WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a city councilman does not confer automatic notability as said by nominator. If there was a WP:SIGCOV then it would definitely be a keep, maybe too soon for now. Lord Grandwell (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I would ask the other reviewers to go back and check out the new and massively improved article. If we delete articles with this much effort having been put in after a warning shot across the bow, we are doing a disservice to our encyclopedia. Impressive work by the author.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's ref-bombed now. There's about two articles which are specifically on him which cover him separately from the city council. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, that’s a risk we run when we over-emphasize procedural reasons for AfD or for votes. In the spirit of no knowledge is bad knowledge, I’m personally not upset by it.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Being a city council member in Austin, Texas is a situation where WP:NPOL gives no strong guidance one way or the other. While WP:HEY certainly applies compared to the initially nominated article, the sheer number of references are misleading; many are either primary sources such as the Austin election results, are pieces by Casar, or don't mention Casar. Most of the sources that do mention him is local. However, local coverage such as [24] and [25] is just enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep City councilors are not inherently notable under WP:NPOL. However, WP:POLOUTCOMES mentions councilors in cities with international prominence can be kept. While I wouldn't rate Austin up with cities like Chicago and New York where we automatically keep all councilors do to precedent. It's apparent here that Casar does appear to be a little more than your average councilor. He has substantial local coverage (probably more than average councilor), a good amount of state wide coverage (The Texas Observer), and has some more national sources like Politico and the Guardian. Obliviously, not a no body councilor and has just as much if not more coverage than most state legislators. WP:HEY and WP:BARE are here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was total crap when it was nominated -- since then it's undergone a pretty substantial expansion (and now features a slew of acceptable sources). It could still do with some slight copyediting, but it definitely does not warrant the hatchet. jp×g 02:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. JGHowes ^talk 17:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Regular Army regiments (1962)[edit]

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

The opening LEAD says "This is a list of British Regular Army regiments after the Army restructuring caused by the 1957 Defence White Paper: many regiments were amalgamated between 1958-60. Further cuts and amalgamations took place in the 1960s and early 1970s." Yet The title is List of British Regular Army regiments (1962). How do we know these are the units in the British Army as of 1962 as a result of the 1957 White Paper which is five years after and the units changed across the 1960s and 1970s? Clearly there are no references and the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTN. BlueD954 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. BlueD954 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete unsourced and no sign of notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, no indication why 1962 would be a notable year for this information. Fram (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article meets WP:CLN WP:AOAL for keeping a list. 1962 is a major year in the Cold War (Cuba), probably the closest point in the Cold War to a hot war. Per CLN "Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks". // Timothy :: talk 11:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is completely unsourced and does not even stick to its purported topic, including information such as "3rd Carabiniers (Prince of Wales's Dragoon Guards) ... amalgamated with The Royal Scots Greys (2nd Dragoons) in 1971 to form the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys)". What happened in 1971 could not have affected the regiments in 1962. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:per Metropolitan90. Aielen85 (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock of BlueD954. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norminator. Lord Grandwell (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typo.BlueD954 (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I poked around some of the wikilinks just for fun - which is what a good list will lend itself to. I found no inaccuracies on what is listed here by looking through the individual units I sampled. And while the comments on future amalgamations after 1962 may be a little confusing given the name of the list, the data on what happened to the unit after the 1962 date is excellent and useful. This to me is a good and informative list.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is not the reason. The reason is there is no references to show these units were formed or retained as as result of the 1957 White Paper. Being informative is not the reason at all. Where are your sources to show they were merged as of the 1957 paper? BlueD954 (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 1962 Defence White Paper is part of Command Paper 1639. It appears that neither is readily available without some subscription access. If anyone has ProQuest access, I have found some references that these command papers may be available there, and I would love for someone to give it a look. Thank you.--Concertmusic (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Concertmusic: I have ProQuest access. Post requests on my talk page and I'll see if I can access the documents you are looking for. No promises though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Let's give it a shot. Firstly, I base my statement about where this defence white paper may be found on this link - first sentence. Then, when I search for that numbered command paper, it gets a little muddled, because the number 1639 doesn't seem to fit into the link here about command papers. It may be a wild goose chase - but thank you for taking a quick look!--Concertmusic (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it exists, but could only find a summary. I did find "Amalgamations and Disbandments in the British Army". Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. 114. London: 82–84. 1 December 1969. The actual plan is found in TNA CAB 129/87/M(57)144 "The Future Organisation of the Army", 18 June 1957, which you can read here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I look forward to some R&R - reading and research!--Concertmusic (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Keep if this is focused on the list of regiments after the 1957 White Paper, it should say that. If it is about that period, maybe 1957-59, it should be retitled and based upon a specific list, which should be available in various British Army history books or Hansard. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. In agreement with Concertmusic and Buckshot06. Sources are available, list is useful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sources are available"? There are no sources in the article, and the only one offered in this AfD, the 1962 Defence White Paper, is obviously a primary source, so not valid for an AfD discussion (it is of course fine for WP:V, but not for WP:N). Fram (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes there are, and I cited one above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I've added that source to the article. (it's not like the existence of these regiments is disputed - they weren't secrets- and they can be verfied just haven't so far in the article). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:48, 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) 22:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The British Army and its structure is certainly notable – see the Encyclopedia of Modern British Army Regiments or Regiments and Corps of the British Army for example. Insofar as the structure has changed repeatedly over time, lists of the current sort are obviously needed to show this. Relevant guidelines and policies include WP:LISTN and WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do any of the sources here specifically address the structure of the Army in 1962 as referenced in the article title? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer my own question: As far as I can tell, no. "Merged regiments and new brigading — many famous units to lose separate identity" is a 1957 newspaper article. "1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards" doesn't mention 1962. Royal Scots Dragoon Guards doesn't mention 1962. "3rd Royal Tank Regiment" says only that the regiment did home service in Catterick, England, in August 1962. "Post-War Amalgamation 1946-1966 The Queen's Royal Surrey Regiment" doesn't mention 1962. "4th Battalion, The King's Own Royal Border Regiment" doesn't mention 1962. "Birth of a regiment" is a film made in 1959. I can't view the 1969 article "Amalgamations and Disbandments in the British Army", but it isn't cited to support any particular fact in this Wikipedia article. If this article is kept after this AfD, I recommend moving it to List of British Regular Army regiments at some vague, undifferentiated time from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s, since that seems to be all the cited sources can support. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kolma8 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Weatherhead[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSPERSON (A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.) Kolma8 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nomination is incorrect, as subject does meet the relevant sports-specific notability guideline (WP:NFOOTBALL). I reckon @Mattythewhite: can expand given this player is notable for playing for the team they support. Giant Snowman 23:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject played in a fully professional league (eight appearances in the Football League) and therefore meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played in the English Football League, which is indisputably a major professional competition. Nomination is therefore simply wrong. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does pass the SNG (WP:NFOOTBALL) as York was a Football League club at that time. It would have been more appropriate to nominate on the grounds of failing WP:GNG although he may well pass that too. Spiderone 13:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As subject does appear notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Garnarblarnar (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will withdraw per above arguments. Kolma8 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fino Herrera[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:NACTOR Emperork 🐋🐰 21:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Emperork 🐋🐰 21:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Emperork 🐋🐰 21:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The parts look minor, does not meet WP:NACTOR Jeepday (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. Also, created by a sock of ParillasAndrie. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ParillasAndrie. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - deletion is the only option here; fails WP:GNG as well as NACTOR and the article was created by a confirmed sock Spiderone 22:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Boy[edit]

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

Questionable notability, few if any reliable secondary sources. Mansheimer (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Googling for information about him under his penname is predictably difficult, and the scene/era of his greatest notability is notoriously smallpress and offline. But this academic source lists him under "Significant people, organizations and subjects" (alongside quite a few people we have articles for), which is an attestation of notability.[26] It's a "passing mention" to be sure, but the fact that NYTimes sought him out to include in this group photo reflects his notability.[27] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not notable. According to present sources, searching, and the two provided above the subject does not pass WP:ARTIST. If we have to consider a name drop from a picture that includes 98 other people (nytimes) or passing mention, as a "hint" of possible notability, that is stretching things. A good indication of failing notability guidelines would be when a penname is predictably difficult to find in a search. Another indicator would be when information is "notoriously smallpress and offline". I opened a lot of tabs trying to verify the unsourced content of the "Comics and Artistic Work" and the short story "Green Pubes" (presented as being "the first animated queercore movie"), other than through IMDb. Print work on pins and tee shirts (artist) did return needed sources. As a BLP there are some demands that sourcing should be better. Otr500 (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the reason his penname is difficult to search for is because it is a common generic phrase; the googlability of a subject's name should not be the standard for notability, nor should we presume that only things easily found that way matter. Queer punk media and the early queer sociopolitical movement were covered mostly within that community – with some lesser acknowledgement by others – but that's just marginalized groups getting shoved to the margins. The Queer Zine Archive Project[28] and Queer Zine Explosion identify him as noteworthy within that scene, indicating that he is (per WP:ARTIST) "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". He was definitely groundbreaking and influential ("Anonymous Boy's drawings of punk guys in love have been gracing the pages of zines and the covers of records since the days of JDs.")[29] "G.B. Jones and Bruce LaBruce’s seminal JDs (1985-1991), for example, featured early work by lesbian cartoonist Carrie McNinch, and Tony Arena’s first Anonymous Boy cartoons. .... [which] can be seen as among the first in what I call the “Second Wave” of LGBT comics and creators." –"The History of Gay Male Comics in America from Before Stonewall to the 21st Century", Sina Shamsavari, London College of Fashion, International Journal of Comic Art[30]. Additionally, the ACT UP Oral History Project's interview with him and his partner[31] provide a bit more substantial coverage of him and reflects how his place in queer history is regarded. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because sources are difficult to locate doesn't mean they don't exist, this is especially true re: print sources which I suspect are more forthcoming given this subject's age and artistic medium. Given the subject was a columnist for Maximum RocknRoll among other things noted above I'm quite certain that, should any editor do the groundwork, reliable sources will be found. Better to leave this article in place so that this work can be done. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any good sources right now, and a claim that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is just wishful thinking, I am afraid. Until they are found, this has to stand on its own, but sadly, it fails WP:NCREATIVE and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JasonAQuest I am not against being shown that my assessment might be in error but the concept of original research would be making statements not backed up by sources to show that an individual or Wikipedia is not the author. Words like "important figure" (as a rationale to clear WP:ARTIST) and "reflects his place in queer history is regarded", need more than some samples of his artwork and one interview, that would show the subject was more than just another editorial cartoonist. These statements need to be backed up by sources that use or indicate specifically the wording. What we consider as "important" or specifically "historically important" needs to be covered as such in reliable sources otherwise it is just an opinion or original research.

I couldn't view the source International Journal of Comic Art so can't comment on it. I do know that we need to discern between independant, non-independent, and Indiscriminate sources to see if there is actual support to advance encyclopedic notability. There is evidence that the subject contributed to more than just Maximum RocknRoll but if that were the only criteria then all contributors (editorial or drawings) to magazines, newspapers, or articles would be notable. I do know this type of sourcing (aortamagazine used in the article) should be banned from Wikipedia as pure advertisement. That an editor that viewed the source would even remotely consider it appropriate would make the head of a nail hurt. Otr500 (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'd like to see a couple stronger sources than the 4 offered in the original article. As it stands now, it leans toward not yet meeting WP:GNG 10Sany1? (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see where this subject meets WP:GNG the two keep arguments are very weak amounting to "there are better references we just can't find them." Jeepday (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One reference in this journal International Journal of Comic Art, and several references in books about gay comic art. Seems a good encyclopedia article in my mind.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons concertmusic gave above. -gtrmp (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not nearly enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. The "article" listed just above is... I'm not sure what. It appears like either a term paper, or the text of a lecture. Regardless, even it only has two brief mentions, hardly in-depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tayler Mercier[edit]

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

Unremarkable individual, doesn't meet WP:GNG guidelines. Quitede (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Influencer. Delete, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant, reliable, independent coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, no reliably-sourced evidence of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage. Does not pass notability guidelines WP:GNG. Peter303x (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sasho Tatarchevski[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. The three references are dead. An earlier version mentioned some awards, but there is no indication of them being significant. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, no doubts Kolma8 (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haven, California[edit]

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

This is another odd cock-up on the part of GNIS, because the name on the topo maps is quite plainly "Little Haven". And if you search for that phrase, you get a number of hits which explain that it is a sort of stop on the Pacific Crest Trail where you can get some assistance. Which is to say, it's one of several ordinary houses on the spot. "Haven", as far as I can tell, was never anything at all other than a failure to copy what's on the map correctly. Mangoe (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News search only about other "Havens" in California. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It does not appear that there was anything close to a consensus for deletion on the first two rounds of listing this, but on the third relisting the trend to keep is too clear to miss. BD2412 T 04:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Ventures[edit]

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

Non-notable media company. This article does not present a case for corporate notability, and a naïve Google search does not indicate that any obvious sources have been overlooked. The company exists, which we knew, and has this Wikipedia article. The article provides a very brief summary of what the company says about itself, and says nothing about what third parties say about the company. The article has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources, but they do not establish notability. 6 of the references are the company's own web site, and 2 are to the web site of an investing company. There is a history of the creation of promotional articles about the company. A draft has also been created and has been declined. The draft also does not establish corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noncommittal comment. My intuition is that the corporate parent of CNET (see [32], [33], [34]) is probably notable, but it seems like the vast majority of coverage is in the context of that acquisition. Apparently it's been around since 2000, and was a marketing company as of 2016. If others don't turn up better sourcing, maybe redirect to CNET? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:COMMONSENSE precedes all guidelines. All citation templates include the name of the publisher. If the website is notable (CNET), it just seems sensible that the citation should refer to a publisher that's notable too. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CNET would appear to be a commonsense and sensible solution. None of the references available meet our NCORP guidelines so a redirect as an alternative to deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly the article could use some fleshing out, but notability doesn't seem to be a concern given the list of products owned. The sourcing appears to be reliable, if not overly deep, but I don't see deletion as the solution.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company owns numerous independently notable media properties (CNET, ZDNet, TV Guide, Metacritic, GameSpot, Chowhound etc) and just announced their acquisition of the world's largest travel publisher Lonely Planet. The company has independent coverage, such as this piece in Inc [35], and their acquisition spree in itself is notable and has been well covered in reputable sourced, eg. [36]. Jpatokal (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or ATD of Redirect to CNET: Fails NCORP and any form of GNG. At this time, and from what I see, I agree with the Nom about the low-quality sources (promotional) and lack of notability for a stand alone article. Long standing community practices are that notability is not inherited. Two of the "keep arguments above, such as, "given list of products owned", and "The company owns numerous independently notable media properties.", along with comments that Wikipedia become a news outlet with "their acquisition spree in itself is notable...", suggest that we now move in a new direction. If the parent company becomes notable in it's own right would be the time to publish a neutral article. == Otr500 (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to being notable in its own right, not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:15, 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) 20:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This company has "a portfolio of over 100 news and information sites ... reaches over 300 million readers worldwide every month." I think it is goo enough to keep it on wikipedia, especially given the recent acquisitions of CNET and LP. Kolma8 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company meets all the citeria for notability. Cite references include primary media coverge of the company by: The Wall Street Journal, Inc., The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Variety, Irish Times, Financial Times - showing notability. Davodd (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. The references you cite fail WP:NCORP which are the guidelines to use for all organizations. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do NOT redirect. Company is notable. This is a company with HQ based in U S. with offices in the U.S., Brazil, UK, China, Australia, etc. It has a portfolio of companies in digital marketing. Article has sufficient citations. SWP13 (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Mulhall[edit]

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

Relisting after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Mulhall was closed as "no consensus" and no real improvement has been made to the page.

Does not meet WP:RLN or WP:GNG as the subject has not played for a top-level rugby league club or represented his nation in a major tournament. The sources are mostly non-independent or merely mentions of him. There's a paywalled article that mentions him as a firefighter. The Everything Rugby League article is from a site that solicits article submissions so it doesn't qualify as an WP:RS.

As far as I can tell, the subject of the article is the only editor who's added any significant content, which isn't much. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to start enforcing its policies against autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - another really unhelpful comment, John, what does that actually mean? That Wikipedia policies only work when articles you don't like get deleted? Deus et lex (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems like a bit of an abuse of the AfD process when you relist so soon after the initial listing, along the lines of keep listing until you get your way. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON but I'd be prepared to keep given he's listed to coach the Delaware Black Foxes in the upcoming 2021 season and that's not far away. Deus et lex (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know that he's going to be notable for being the coach of an American Rugby League club that gets little to no independent coverage. And I don't think it's an abuse of AFD considering the subject has had almost 2 months to improve the article since the other AfD and hasn't made any effort to improve the notability claim beyond adding the aforementioned article and removing article issue templates. Again, I don't think it's encouraging when no one other than the article subject is willing to contribute to the article. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fact that the club has an article means that there is a valid alternative to deletion which you are required to consider before nominating for deletion. And you also need to remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress - there is no time pressure to improve an article before it is deleted. 2 months is not a great deal of time. The previous AfD made no suggestion of ways to improve the article. Deus et lex (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet GNG- its all just names on a list from team listings connected to the subject, passing mentions and there are no less than three forum posts?! out of ten references; barely any of the refs appear to be reliable sources to start with. The closest to in depth in an RS we get is the AFR ref from 2019 "Liam Mulhall, 38, a fireman who served with the RAAF, said he had been diagnosed with total and permanent disability injuries by six specialists, including two psychiatrists, and told by medical specialists he could not work or be retrained for another job. Mr Mulhall said: "It took me seven months to find out whether they will accept a claim. Even though I have six specialists they kept adding more clauses, more loopholes, more forms, more questions." Mr Mulhall's claim was approved this month because of injuries caused when he was a fireman." That's it. Curdle (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he fails any relevant WP:SNG and has never been significantly covered by a non-independent source per WP:GNG. Non-notable league player, unfortunately. SportingFlyer T·C 16:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what about the valid alternatives to deletion? You haven't shown that they are inappropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to show they're inappropriate when the article that was the suggested redirect was recently deleted? SportingFlyer T·C 11:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absorb Add these details in the Delaware Black Foxes article, as that page appears to have had player RLN applied to a club, where this player and coach of this club would fail notability but the club itself would not be constrained by those rules.Fleets (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD discussion didn't even mention RLN. SportingFlyer T·C 11:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should not have been deleted.Fleets (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not agreeing with you. I'm saying that the other article was deleted for not having any reliable sources, and no reliable sources were available to add. It had nothing to do with the SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, google came up with 743k pages, I'm sure you just missed those by mistake.Fleets (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I'm still engaging here, but not only did I get around 2,950 Google hits in my search for that article just now, but Google hits aren't what we use to determine notability. Removing the quotes brought up... a lot of articles about foxes, since the fox is the state animal of Delaware. SportingFlyer T·C 15:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To piggyback, those 2,950 are mostly match reports, social media links and stats, hits that do not establish notability. As far as I can tell, you're basically left with two very similar articles created after the Black Foxes article that appear to rely almost entirely on quotes from Mr. Mulhall and the club itself. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant independent coverage of him that would meet WP:GNG. I also see nothing that would show he meets WP:ANYBIO. Being a former semi-pro rugby player and coach do not meet any notability criteria. Perhaps a redirect to the team page on WP would be reasonable, if it hadn't been previously deleted. Papaursa (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Improve it, please.

Can always be nominated again if needed. Just remember - AFD is not to be used for clean up. Thanks everyone! Missvain (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tzahi (Zack) Weisfeld[edit]

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

Well this article's a mess. A big one too. But before we go in with brooms I put the community whether or not the article should stay. Regardless of the current advertisementy tone there are independent sources and the subject itself looks like it may eek over the bar of notability, so I'm listing this here to settle the matter first. As a preemptive strike, I note in this nomination that the article's contributor appears to be both a new and to have declared as a paid editor, so take this into account if and when he posts here. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your comments. As I have mentioned before, This article is not being paid by anyone. Weisfeld is a catalysator of innovation in the Hi-tech and start-up ecosystem not only in Israel , but also globally. I gave sitelinks to several independent sources such as Techchrunch, Calcalist,Insider magazine and Zdnet which indicates his contributions. Weisfeld was one of many few Israelis who holds Senior position in a large cooperate like Microsoft, and before that take a vital parts in Israeli hi-tech companies such as Modu. He founded Microsoft for startups and was the force behind the growth of Microsoft activities for startups, accelerators and investments with partnership of 200 accelerators, companies, Startups and Vc funds. I think his actions and biography are no different with other entrepreneur like Jonathan Medved , Hillel Fuld and other Israeli entrepreneurs. For conclusions, I think the subject itself are worth Wikipedia article, And I will be happy to work on it further for matching the Wikipedia standards. Shaykea (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/guidance The focus of the deletion decision should be 1) is the topic notable? If not notable then delete, if "possibly notable" (NOT "marginally notable, but no hope of finding sources to push it "over the line", but rather "there are likely sources that haven't turned up yet that will push it over the line" or "there is still debate over the quality of the sources"), soft delete, draftify (since there is obviously ongoing improvement, with hopes of finding suitable sources), userfy (ditto), or "no consensus." If it IS notable, BUT WP:Blow it up and start over applies, then salvage the references and userfy them and delete. Obviously, if the topic is notable and the page can be salvaged, then "keep and improve."

I have NOT read THIS article and its references closely enough to have an opinion on THIS AFD discussion YET. I'm just outlining the reasons for deletion vs. keep vs. other outcomes in a situation where the article is "a mess" and where the notability status is not yet certain. This comment is for inexperienced editors and others not familiar with AFD, it is a "high level" view and does not include all nuances, experienced AFD editors are aware of "edge case" situations where this does not apply. TomStar81, you are more "grey-beard" than I am by far (mop, golden wiki, 2004 start date, need I say more?), this comment isn't meant for you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need to divide article subjects into notable / non-notable to make the pragmatic decision on whether to have an article, but it's an artifice mapping. Even within the GNG standards, subjects meet them to a varying extent: references are more or less reliable, more or less independent. , more or less significant. We can have 2 borderline acceptable references, or may excelletn ones. (By any real-life standard, there's of course a great variation---living people for example do not divide up nicely between two categories, nor does any other subject. ). Theidea that notability is an objective mechanical determination does not make sense, even using hte GNG, and we have about 30,000 AfD discussions a year to prove it , about 1/10 of the total articles. And notability however defied is of course not hte only consideration in deletion. We do not accept advertisements, or any of the other categories listed in NOT -- tho for all of them, it's again a matter of degree. The focus of the deletion decision isn't whether something is or is not notable--that's just one of the many possible reasons (though it's the most common one). It is on whether the article is appropriate for WP according to its policies--and notability is just one guideline related to one part pof one of the policies DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the patents, the dodgy external links per elno and a dodgy ref. There is more than enough coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV to build a new article. It is a BLP article that reads like a company article and references are very poor. Reference 3 is only one amongst the lot that provides biographical information in a profile, which itself is very poor. GBooks has enough to support a new article. I think this should be slimmed right down, get rid of the WP:PUFF. Changed from Delete to Comment. scope_creep^Talk 14:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing the arguments so far, It seems that most of the edtiors agree that the page can be notable. After scope_creep edited the article and removed content which may considered as WP:PUFF, the article was reviewed and verified by Onel5969. In Addition, I replaced some weak references and add cites from interviews in more common and objective news and media resources. Therefore after the corrections and the help of the community to make the article more notable, I suggest to remove the page from WP:AFD and keep it.Shaykea (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my review of the article was purely procedural, as it was nominated for deletion through AfD. The AfD discussion will be the arbiter of whether the article is kept or not, so per NPP sop, these articles are routinely marked reviewed to remove them from the back-logged queue. I have not reached an opinion on the notability of the subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading this article, I wonder what the deletionist had in mind. The subject is clearly notable and the sources are solid. I see no valid basis for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 (Talk) Since you have flagged the article with WP:AfD at the first place, I will be happy to get your feedback on the current situation of the Article. Do you think that in the current situation the WP:AFD should be removed? Shaykea (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaykea: Sorry for the slow reply, I didn't realize you had reached out to me. In answer to your question I do not have the authority to remove the tag because the article is not nominated for speedy deletion, it is nominated for deletion, which means it is before the community as a whole. As a check on this, a two man rule is in place here, so since I nominated it I can not close it, another admin will do so and interpret the discussion here to ensure partiality. Since the nomination began work has been done on the article, but at the moment only a single keep !vote has been tallied, so it ultimately comes down to the assertion by Geewhiz that the article is notable the sources solid vs my assertion that the article is promotional in nature. Keep in mind you may cast an !vote too, if you like, you are a member of the community and unless you are under sanctions not to do so you may contribute here as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been a lot of general talk about what is and isn't eligible for deletion and relatively little discussion about whether Weisfeld is a notable topic specifically.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : As I have mentioned before, Zack Weisfeld is a major force in the Israeli and the worldwide Start-ups Ecosystem. He was a senior executive in microsoft and he was in charge of all microsoft investments at startups and expanding its accelerators. His biography are no different with other entrepreneur like Jonathan Medved , Hillel Fuld and other Israeli entrepreneurs.

Shaykea (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Zack Weisfeld is a senior executive in microsoft and was in charge of all microsoft investments at startups and expanding its accelerators. There are 21 Reliable and highly valued source references e.g. Forbes,Globes newspaper,TechCrunch, www.calcalist.co.il etc . He was listed as "one of the 10 most influential Israelis in high-tech in the world" by Business Insider Magazine. I see no reason to delete such important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaterLord1980 (talk • contribs)

The above keep vote is so far this editors only WP-edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have nothing to disprove what I said so you attack me personally, this is called Ad Hominem "attacking the person instead of attacking his argument". And by the way what you said is false, this is my second edit. My last one was a year ago :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaterLord1980 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WaterLord1980: This is getting a bit off-topic. You should forgive the misunderstanding about the edit count: Like me, the other editor was probably only considering your edit history on the English-language Wikipedia. I dug a bit deeper and saw that yes, indeed, you did make one edit on a different-language Wikipedia in 2019 (see here). Please forgive the misunderstanding. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, I was 100% wrong about the number of edits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been canvassed about this AfD by an IP. Personally I am quite troubled by the effort that someone (or some people) are going to to get this article created and kept. Created by a paid editor, photo approved through OTRS, accounts from other language wikis with virtually no edits suddenly appearing here to support its retention. The subject appears to be borderline notable, but the behaviour of those involved makes me want to support its deletion. Number 5 7 16:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I read the discussion above. As well as I know, Mr. Weisfeld is a notable figure, and one of the leaders of the early-stage technology scene in Israel for the last decade, founding and leading two of the most influential global startup programs by Intel and Microsoft, after a long career as an entrepreneur and executive in succesful tech companies. The article has many sources and articles that demonstrate that, and it's fairly well written, so I'd vote "keep". --Hmbr (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another aspect of this AfD that looks suspicious – this is only the third edit to en.wiki this year by Hmbr (previous one in September). What is going on here? I would guess that I am not the only editor who was canvassed here. Number 5 7 16:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I have stumbled across this AfD without having been prompted - FYI. Based on the sourcing and content, while not an outstanding article in and of itself, I don't have an issue with notability or reliability. It strikes me as in interesting encyclopedia piece on a leader in his field in his country.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:07, 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) 20:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability guidelines. The shape of the article and the fact that some COI people might want it to stay I don't think changes that. The article didn't seem to be in too bad of a shape to me, but I'm not that experienced. Nobody told me to come here Bedfordres (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added copyedited and added some data and references to the article. Calcalist, Forbes, Business Insider, Times of Israel and Globes are all worthy sources. There seems to be no question of notability here.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, we should make every effort to put this person under Tzahi or Zack. The current name looks really bad. gidonb (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtis Conner[edit]

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

Fails GNG: nothing beyond Youtube and coverage of his YouTuber status. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comedians have rather high notability and also it is currently semi-protected. ~Cupper (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the 11 footnotes here, more than half are invalid support for notability: three are his own self-published social media content about himself, two are university student newspapers, one is a self-created press release announcing his own comedy show, and one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article whose core subject is something else. That leaves just four links that are acceptable, but none of them are verifying anything that would be "inherently" notable under our inclusion standards for entertainers — so the only notability claim they support is "notable because media coverage exists", and four links isn't enough to get there. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A few sources in the article seem to be reliable, including source #3. I also found some reliable sources which talk about him, whether fully or partially: [37], [38], [39], [40] and [41]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:ENT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Young Hollywood" is not a reliable or notability-supporting source; Iowa State Daily and The Gateway are both university student newspapers, not general market media, so they don't contribute any WP:GNG points; the Broadway World hit is his own press release announcing a performance, not journalistic coverage about the performance (on that site, you have to forget about anything that has the author credit given as "BWWNewsDesk" instead of a real person's name, because BWWNewsDesk means they're reprinting the subject's own self-published press release); Cincinnati CityBeat is an alt-weekly, which means it's fine to use but not enough to singlehandedly get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only valid new source you can provide over and above the mostly garbage sources that were already in the article. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found several sources, here, here, and here, and also considering Cincinnati CityBeat article found by ASTIG, I am convinced that this person passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are new sources; all three of them are already in the article, and already among the four sources that I assessed above as not enough. If a person doesn't have an accomplishment that constitutes an "inherent" notability claim that requires an article to exist, then it takes more than four hits of media coverage to get them over the "notable because media coverage exists" bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is literally the exact opposite of what WP:GNG says. Your opinion seems to be that if someone does clear a WP:SNG, than they are not notable, which is not only completely ludicrous, its also the exact opposite of what WP:SNG is, they are designed to supplement GNG, not replace it. Your personal rants do not override policy. So, I think you will find that according to the actual policy surrounding notability, "four hits of media coverage" is in fact double what is needed to prove notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG most certainly is not, and never has been, "if a person can show two hits of media coverage, then they're automatically exempted from having to actually pass the actual SNG for their occupation". GNG does not just count the footnotes and automatically keep anybody who has two — it tests the sources for their depth, their geographic and temporal range, their type and the context of what they're covering the person for, and discounts some sources as contributing less than other sources do. If the existence of two sources, without any further depth or range or context tests, were all it took to exempt a person from having to pass an SNG, then the list of people we would have to keep articles about would include every city and town councillor in every city and town on earth, unelected candidates for every political office in every election on earth, every school board trustee on earth, every musician who ever got local coverage for playing the local pub without ever accomplishing anything that would pass WP:NMUSIC, every high school athlete who ever got a blip of local human interest coverage for being on the high school football team despite having only nine toes, my mother's neighbour who got a bit of "news of the weird" coverage a few years back for finding a pig in her front yard, and me.
So no, the mere existence of two hits of media coverage is not in and of itself a GNG-based exemption from having to pass any SNGs — in actual fact, to get into Wikipedia on that little coverage, one or both of the sources would have to be verifying passage of an "inherently" notable criterion in an SNG. That is, if a person wins an Academy Award, then they get to be in Wikipedia on just one or two sources which verify that award win even if they have no other sources — but if a person has no "inherent" notability claims under any SNGs, and instead the notability claim you're shooting for is "because media coverage of him exists", then it does take a lot more than just two, three or four sources to get him over that bar. And that goes especially when two of the four hits come from a site listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as a problematic and non-ideal source, and a third comes from a local alternative weekly — if that's actually the best he can do, then it is not good enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim than the mere existence of a small handful of sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you do not get to make up stuff in complete contrast to what actual policy says. If you want to rewrite policy, that is your prerogative, but this is not the place to Wikilawyer an attempt to rewrite policy. Also, WP:BLP1E exists. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making up or rewriting or wikilawyering a goddamn thing. There is an established consensus that GNG is not just "count the footnotes, and keep everybody and everything who gets to two"; there is an established consensus that GNG tests sources for their depth, range and context, and not just their number alone; there is an established consensus that if you're shooting for "doesn't pass any SNGs, but is notable anyway just because media coverage exists", then it does take quite a bit more than just a small handful of media hits; there is an established consensus that Insider is a problematic source — it's literally marked as such in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources — which means it can be okay for very sparing use, but cannot be the core of an argument that a person passes GNG in the first place. Again, not making a damn thing up: we have an established consensus about how GNG actually works when matters of differing interpretation come up for debate and discussion, and I'm not wrong about what that established consensus is. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 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) 20:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Searching News gets me over 500 hits across a wide variety of entertainment outlets. Several of them appear to be reliable sources. Then there is this in-depth bio piece, news of sold out shows in Chicago - all in all I have no issues with notability or sourcing availability.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This feels like a delete because the Keep side haven't provided a y real counter to why this year and the NOT arguments and the source analysis at the end is pretty devastating but with the nom being blocked for multiple socking I'm not quite there.

I'm also super over these order of battle arguments by year. Here is a radical idea. Can we stop nominating and creating these and actually draw up a guideline that both sides like a bit and hate a bit because that way we can sort this area out in a consistent and non-contentious way. Just a thought. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Territorial Army units (2012)[edit]

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

The article sates List of Territorial Units in 2012. But by 2012, there was no more TA but the Army Reserve. Why do we need a list of units in a specific year? The article is totally unreferenced and not up to Wikipedia standards. It does not meet WP:GNG, WP:SNG, WP:ARTN. BlueD954 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely unsourced and no sign of notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually the TA was renamed the Army Reserve in 2014. It needs to be repurposed as a list of TA units before the reforms and better sourced, but it is a valid article as a final list of TA units. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Which source states the date the TA was renamed the Army Reserve? You made no effort to improve a vast unreferenced list. Why is such a list verified and notable?BlueD954. (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Defence Reform Act 2014. Per WP:V, it needs to be verifiable, which it clearly is. Yes, it needs better sourcing, but claiming that the structure of the British Army does not meet WP:GNG is ludicrous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is ludicrous is you calling this a structure. It's a list of units with no references BlueD954 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is a list of units with their subunits not a structure? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See why this PROD was deleted. BlueD954 (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Had I spotted it in time I would have deprodded that too. And I've now restored it. But it's not in the slightest relevant to an AfD in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a valid list and the links provide citing. It needs some clean up, but should be kept. Kierzek (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp and WP:NNC. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been explained before: WP:NNC is not an argument to keep (or delete) lists, it is an argument that if a list subject is notable (which is what is up for debate), there is no need to establish that each individual entry in the list is notable as well. E.g. a list of compatitors in a notable sporting event may well include non-notable individuals, and NNC argues correctly that that isn't a problem. It does not argue that a list of competitors in a non-notable sporting event would be acceptable. Fram (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable, independent sources are provided. At the moment, this lacks all notability. Fram (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look on GBooks. References can be found e.g., 1, 2, 3. This is a pss for WP:LISTN and WP:NEXIST. FOARP (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That first one, fine, but the second one are truly passing mentions, and the third one contradicts our own article on many points, making it rather unclear if it really is a reliable source. Fram (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would prefer not to see a proliferation of orbats. Dormskirk (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but so long as the OOBs are kept to those following major changes in organisation, then this would seem kosher. FOARP (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from the one book above, this appears to fail WP:LISTN as it hasn't really been discussed in RS. SportingFlyer T·C 13:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Mztourist.Leahjstaples1234 (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock of BlueD954. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. jp×g 12:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:per SportingFlyer.Aielen85 (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock of BlueD954. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the discussion above highlights, there seems very little basis for this list in WP:RS. I have yet to see an argument about why 2012 is particularly justifiable compared with, say, 2011 or 2013. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a collection of cruft that fails WP:LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be exactly what I would look for in a list. Great wikilinking to other articles I may be interested in, and as a list, I would expect to find the supporting sources in maybe just 1 or 2 places - which is certainly the case here. Notability certainly isn't a factor for me on a list of this nature and size. Same argument as for 2 other lists nominated for AfD - which leads me to add the argument that these British Army-related lists should be kept as a unit.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:16, 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) 20:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find sources for this such as The British Army Guide 2012 - 2013. Passes WP:LISTN and WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article meets WP:CLN WP:AOAL for keeping a list. Per CLN "Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks". // Timothy :: talk 17:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Nom and the the flawed rationale of Concertmusic (the size of the article has nothing to do with notability) and Andrew Davidson (A primary source does not advance notability and [[WP:NEXIST: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.) This is a 2013 list article. I was wondering exactly what Brigade Piron stated: "why 2012 is particularly justifiable compared with, say, 2011 or 2013". With the direction keep !votes are leaning we could have a very large (makes it obviously notable) article on any subject where a primary source is shown. That is not according to our accepted community practices on sourcing such as [[WP:V|All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. That does not necessarily mean "presented on the article" but along with WP:BURDEN, since notability is questioned, then proof should be presented. Lacking this is evidence of a lack of notability. The criteria of Wikipedia:LISTN clearly states "independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". Since primary sources do not advance notability there is a very fundamental issue with claims the article satisfies WP:LISTN. Since none of the "keep !votes" are advocating to keep because of invoking WP:IAR (so we can't discuss that) then the policies and guidelines are applicable to list articles, as a group, and with only primary sourcing it fails that. I am still trying to determine the encyclopedic value of such a list. WP:CLN (#5) gives disadvantages of having such a list ...entries that cannot be reliably sourced and do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia., and sourcing that advances notability is the main issue. Otr500 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otr500 is quite mistaken. The British Army Guide 2012 - 2013 is not a primary source – not even close, as it is a compendious reference work. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It seems Andrew Davidson is correct that the source is not primary apparently drawing on primary sources ("The information in this publication has been gathered from unclassified sources") and does not offer anything more than a listing. According to the site it is listed as "The Defence Suppliers Directory" with the further, "The Defence Suppliers Directory has become a Global Marketplace for customers seeking Defence related products." This makes it appear as a vendors list so I still question that copying the list is an acceptable source to advance inclusion notability for an article. I also still don't see the relevance of one particular year over any other as particularly notable when the content can be part of an updated article. Otr500 (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yet another list of military units in an arbitrary year with extremely inadequate sourcing. Let's look at the references. TA Units - British Army Website Archived 2013-05-17 at the Wayback Machine is a broken link, supposedly archived at the Wayback Machine but with no link to the archived version. Queen's Regulations, March 2009 is a 354-page document, whose pages bear a variety of dates, but it's not clear what fact it's being cited to support nor where that fact would appear in the document. "Territorial Army Bands (TA)". is cited to support the statement, "There are currently 20 Army Reserve bands located across the UK with one in Gibraltar", but I don't see any reference to 20 Army Reserve bands on that page nor to one being in Gibraltar. TAQ (12 ed.). MoD. June 2011. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) is cited as a reference to a journal but with no article title or page number -- and, for that matter, I don't see any journal named TAQ listed in the British Library catalogue. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acta Pintériana[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "I agree that the article has issues that can be addressed. I also freely admit that I do not read Hungarian. But by following the links provided in the article, I found back issues of this annual journal back to 2015. Numerous authors have spent many hours writing these articles. I am not a fan of WP:GNG - this article needs improvement, not deletion" (stated on article talk page). This is not a valid claim to notability either under GNG or under NJournals. PROD reson stands, hence; delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Journal has entries in international registers such as ISSN and WorldCat, which seems to cover inherited notability in WP:NJournals. There are 6 annual issues with what appears to be articles of academic interest in the subject matter. Without an ability to read Hungarian or properly search for further resources on Hungarian sites, I don’t believe that we have enough information to make a good call - hence I believe that we should err on the side of keeping the article in the interest of inclusivity. Most importantly, the article provides new data and enough information to do further reading and research - just what I want from an encyclopedia article. Thank you.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are misinterpreting NJournals. An ISSN is easy to obtain, you just have to file a request. Similarly, WorldCat is not selective either but strives to include everything that even a single library will hold. Publishing issues in and of itself doesn't confer notability either. If we don't have enough information to make a good call, that basically means that neither GNG nor NJournals are met. Sources in Hungarian are perfectly admissible, but as it stands we basically have only the information provided by the journal itself, which is not enough to base an article upon. --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to object to your statement of “ If we don't have enough information to make a good call, that basically means that neither GNG nor NJournals are met.” That appears to be leaning in the direction of deletionism. I would much rather have us adopt something more along the lines of “no harm, no foul” - and I don’t see the harm in keeping the article. I do appreciate the discussion-that was my point in deleting the PROD.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may call it "deletionism" if you like, but based on your reasoning here we should do away with AfD. Just G11 (speedy deletion off spam) would be enough. That's not what we do. Harmless or not, an article has to be based on independent reliable sources, which we don't have here. Your !vote is therefore not based in policy. The journal is still young, perhaps it will become notable over time, but I broke my crystal ball yesterday, so I can't give a firm prediction. ;-) --Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the honest and civil discourse. I also appreciate you basing your argument largely on NJournals and not on GNG, which I find to be poor policy. You mentioned policy - I am hopeful that policy, which is meant to be somewhat fluid, can in fact be updated to be more inclusive. I scanned 25 or so AfD discussions earlier, and every single one either was solely based on GNG or had it as a factor. Many of them had more Keeps than Deletes. GNG, or its proper application, needs some help - and if I can make a small difference there, I'll be happy. Thank you for your time!--Concertmusic (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the original proposed-deletion rationale. Wikipedia's role is not to document everything that has ever called itself a journal. Moreover, the article content appears to be mostly copyvio from the journal's own website. There does not appear to be a suitable redirect target. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs revision, but is an official publication of the Franciscan Order in Hungary, not some fly-by-night predatory journal. I think there's plenty of room here for the article to be expanded and improved. Korossyl (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Korossyl, since when is it enough for a journal not to be predatory to meet GNG or NJournals? And if there is room for the article "to be expanded and improved", please show us the independent sources that could be used for that. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was responding your comment about anything "calling itself a journal:" this is an official publication of a highly notable organization, so that right there indicates to me legitimate notability. NJournal is not Wikipedia policy, but GNG generally requires outside sources. A cursory Google search turned up at least one article announcing the journal's founding, which I've added to the intro paragraph.

The journal also has listings in databases much more selective than WorldCat or the ISSN catalogue -- the Hungarian Academy of Sciences [42], the Hungarian National Library [43], and Eötvös Loránd University [44]. Do you think it would it help to put these on the wiki page? Korossyl (talk) 23:40, 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) 20:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference that you added comes from the "Ferences Sajtóközpont" (translated: Franciscan Press Center), so is not independent. The "databases" that you list are library catalogs, which really is run-of-the-mill stuff for any academic journal. So none of that contributes to notability, I'm afraid. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would politely disagree. The text was written by the Franciscans, but it's appearing on an unaffiliated website; this is no different than publishing an organization's press release. The release itself is made by the organization, but it is an INDEPENDENT organization that deems it notable enough to publish. As for the catalogues, these are not automatically approved or updated -- listing in them indicates significance. But either way, all these sources are independent of the journal. 17:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Press releases, regardless where published, never contribute to notability. Similarly, a few library catalog entries are not an indication of any notability either. Have a look at the archives of journal-related AFDs (there are two archives, the second one is the most recent one) to see what historically has been used to show notability for journals. --Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases do not indicate notability, but an article published by an independent source absolutely does -- even if it was written by an affiliated person, the fact that another site saw it as important enough to give space to is significant. As for cataloguing, I agree that it can very well be a matter-of-course, but these appearance in these catalogues is not automatic or guaranteed but rather the result of a vetting process. So, I again see this as being an indicator of the notability we're seeking. I'm keeping my vote to "keep." Korossyl (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I respectfully maintain that your interpretation of these sources is wrong. --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. tl;dr (actually I did but afterwards I wished I had just counted voyes to get to NC. Sportingflyer being persuaded to change tjeir vote took this firmly into "dunno" territory. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 FC Winterthur season[edit]

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

Meets no widely accepted inclusion criteria; not within the criteria of WP:NSEASONS and fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 15:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, a quick look at the German version shows a well-developed, decently referenced article, so it's probably a notable topic, but the article in its present state is difficult to defend. SportingFlyer T·C 16:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing looks to be mostly to Der Landbote but then via Winterthur's club website. I'm not sure if this counts as a secondary source or not as most of the links are dead so I'm unable to check. Spiderone 17:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources from the season description are from articles of Der Landbote, that's correct. FC Winterthur published those earlier on their own website in the news section - not doing it now anymore tho. For results, transfers and so on the official website of the swiss football league is referenced. Fundriver (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 19:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is correct. The match results are complete and correct. The linked players are correct and the listed yellow and red cards are correct. Okay, there is no introduction text, there is no explaination to the season, there are no texts to the seasons endings, but the details stated are correct. Okay, there is no end of season league table and the cup winners are not mentioned. Okay, to the history of the club's seasons, there are no previous seasons and no following seasons, but the details of this season are correct and with a litle bit of work we could make the article self explanitory. Perhaps I am a little bit biased because I have contributed to the contents within. But, there are very few articles over Swiss football and there seems to be some sort of attack against Swiss football in Wiki over the last few days. Deleting the page would not improve the documentation of Swiss football, but would reduce any sort of couverage, thus making future couverage more difficult. Please leave the page and make additions to improve it. But please don't worry, if the page is deleated, I will continue my contribution to Swiss football anyway. Greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The team didn't play in a fully professional league. Please can you provide sources showing significant coverage to demonstrate that this passes GNG? Also, putting two articles that fall outside inclusion criteria up for a deletion discussion hardly constitutes an attack so please don't cast aspersions. Spiderone 07:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Swiss Challenge league is a professional league - even tho some little clubs have a semi-professional player-base - but Winterthur doesn't count to them. But from the common definition in Switzerland, you consider the Challenge League (as part of the Swiss Football League, which unites the first and second tier leagues) a professional league. Out of this reason, the Challenge League also was allowed to play again quite fast after the lockdown due to the Covid-crisis, while all amateur-leagues were still forbidden. Fundriver (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is why it has to be a fully professional league by Wikipedia standards. As you say second- and third-tier leagues often have a number of smaller clubs. In Norway it's the same. The second-tier league consists of about 4-5 fully professional clubs and 12-13 semi-professional clubs. That makes for a not fully professional league. Geschichte (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true, User:Geschichte. Unlike the standard for players, WP:NSEASONS explicitly doesn't use "fully-professional". It simply says professional. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello there from Winterthur, the results in the article are all correct. As well I can assure you, that the sources are correct. If you need some short saison description, I can make one in english - even tho german is my mothertongue. Fundriver (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG, please could you provide secondary sources that show significant coverage of this particular Winterthur season? I was not questioning the accuracy of the results but more the notability of the subject. Even leagues as low down as the 11th tier in England have reliable recording of results. The reason they don't have articles is because they generally lack the coverage to pass GNG. Spiderone 12:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Thanks for the imput. As suggested to me, I have copied both pages into my sandbox. But as far as I can see from the imputs to date, there is not going to be a decision, because there are not all that many inputs so far. Again, I just suggest that we keep the articles just in case that there are going to be improvements made from other users who know or find further information. Again, all I am trying to do with my edits, is to increase the coverage of Swiss football. If kept, I can definately add prose, but I am not willing to do so if the article is going to be deleated wthin a couple of days. I wish everybody a very nice Sunday --Huligan0 (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. The article being correct is in no way a justification for it to be kept. Number 57 11:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned, the swiss Challenge League is a professional soccer league - as far I understood, this should be enough for notability. Best regards, Fundriver (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, WP:NSEASONS isn't an exclusionary standard, and the Challenge League does get significant coverage in national newspapers. SportingFlyer T·C 12:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - And yet none of this alleged significant coverage has been found... GiantSnowman 11:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I'm not quite sure what proof needs to be seen, how about: SFL internet or Weltfussball internet. What sort of information should be added? Greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Results listings are not WP:SIGCOV Spiderone 22:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another remark They are not just result listings, there are match courses stated on all matches on SFL and there is a live ticker as well on Weltfussball. Please tell me what you want, not what you DON'T want. Otherwise we can't improve the article to your satisfaction. I repeat, I just suggest that we keep the article (unluckily the 2016–17 FC Schaffhausen season has already been deleated already) just in case that there are going to be improvements made from other users who know or find further information. There are already two offers in this discussion to improve it. Again, all I am trying to do with my edits, is to increase the coverage of Swiss football. If kept, I can definately add prose, but I am not willing to do so if this article is going to be deleated as well within a couple of days. I wish everybody a very nice Thursday and send greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing a good article for a season can be difficult but if you're looking for guidance, these articles are probably a good starting point. Have a look at the references used. Yes, a lot of the coverage is just from match reports but there are also plenty of references showing interest in the club season as a whole 2000–01 S.L. Benfica season and 2015–16 Bengaluru FC season. Spiderone 08:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets NSEASONS, as they play in one of the top professional leagues in the country. Note that NSEASONS explicitly doesn't say "fully-professional". There's enough material to make a reasonably sourced article - and looking at de:FC Winterthur/Saison 2014/15, a very good one. Article needs improving not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep: "Change of !vote, see comments below". (ATD, draftify) : Fails WP:NSEASON, What Wikipedia is not, and WP:Verifiability. Article problems are likely insurmountable. Notability: If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable). The catch-22 of not wanting to add prose (and apparently sourcing) to an article that may be deleted (we call a Hey) is that currently the article fits the definition of 1)- "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", basically a list-class article. If we have a list-class statistic article there should be a main article with "explanatory text providing context". When this is lacking the article fails WP:NSEASON miserably: Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created. When notability is challenged an unsourced article, apparently improperly using sourcing from the "External links" section that includes the names of living people, runs afoul of BLP: This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Said it much better than I could myself. Spiderone 13:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article could use some improvements, it provides accurate details on a full season in the 2nd tier of Swiss soccer. The discussion about fully professional seems a little strange to me - as even a first-tier club in a fully professional major soccer league could field amateur players from their 2nd squad - which does not make anything about the league or club less than professional. Regardless, this looks to be useful info to have in an encyclopedia.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Otr500 and Spiderone. We are not simply a directory of stats and match results - per WP:NSEASONS, there must be enough content to produce actual sourced prose describing the season, and no one here has given any indication that such sourcing exists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A lot of people seem to be working on the presumption that teams in the 2nd tier of Swiss football automatically warrant these articles but I'm not seeing enough in the way of evidence to support that presumption. Spiderone 16:24, 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) 20:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for the relist. I have had a look at the posibilites and have now decided to make some improvements to the article, to see if I can save the contents from being deleated. As I mentioned earlier, there are very few articles over Swiss football and I still feel that there some sort of assault against Swiss football in Wiki over the last few months, a referee and the 2016–17 FC Schaffhausen season has been deleated, a couple of player articles have been closed and now Fedayi San is proposed for deleation as well. Then our discussion here about the Swiss Challenge league being or not being a professional league. The Challenge League is part of the Swiss Football League. Due to the Covid-crisis, all amateur-leagues are still forbidden/interupted while professional sport is allowed, the Super League and the Challenge League are both running. Hoping that I will be successful in changing a few peoples minds, I send football greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other sources available like this one? In my view, this is the only one out of the ones cited in the article that could contribute towards WP:GNG. Spiderone 11:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Hallo, I take the liberty to ask you if you would like to review 2014–15 FC Winterthur season (again). In the meantime, I have added texts and citations. Perhaps you would like to add a new comment, and perhaps with a couple of suggestions, to the this discussion page. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thank you very much for your participation. Kindest greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already voted as Keep above, and with the improvements, I certainly see no reason to change that vote. Thank you for the effort!--Concertmusic (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. I do believe that this has enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG now. Just about, anyway. I have added one citation needed tag. Just after the Der Landbote quotes; I wasn't sure if they came from the reference before or from a different article as I seem to have reached my limit for viewing articles from that paper. Spiderone 22:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict) Surprised this wasn't closed already, but Huligan0 asked me to re-review the page on my talk page as I had commented earlier and not voted. It's not the clearest-cut keep in the world, but I do think this passes WP:GNG based on the available sourcing, and it's now much improved. Also note WP:NSEASONS is not exclusionary. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have also been asked to re-review following the improvements. My feelings have not changed - there is insufficient significant coverage for GNG. Giant Snowman 11:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Likewise been asked to re-review. Still a delete from me. Number 5 7 12:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: (hit edit conflict) WOW! Still open. Please just don't read if you think too long or skip to the "Rationale" sub-section. I too have been asked for a "re-review. Huligan0 has stated: "I still feel that there some sort of assault against Swiss football in Wiki over the last few months,...". This version of Wikipedia covers "global" notable topics and we espouse accepting articles from other versions to accomplish that goal. This has often times resulted in a deluge of articles that do not fit the established notability criteria. One inherent principle on this platform is a community supported often overlooked rationale of considering alternatives to deletion (See Administrator instructions above) to inclued providing for userfication.

The enWikipedia does have a majority of Anglophone topics and a systemic bias many times "absolutely" attributed to the availability of sources. This does not mean we are to just accept articles with a Wikipedia degrading rationale of "there may be sources out there somewhere in the universe". Another form of not mentioned bias is the lag of maintenance (resulting in career tags) and ultimately any AFD. Even when there is a possible consensus of deletion any user can request userfication.

Some things have been presented: 1)- a lack of notability certainly as evidenced by sources on the article and possible bias of finding sources as evidenced by editors requesting such, 2)- the article, as written, was a clear violation of What Wikipedia is not and project specific guidelines. I actually agree with SportingFlyer that WP:NSEASONS is not "exclusionary" but not to be discounted. Wikipedia has projects for a reason and these project (topic) specific notability guidelines should not be used to water down or conflict with other acceptable notability guidelines such as GNG. However, as long as we have projects (as long as there is an English Wikipedia) we cannot discount their topic specific guidelines and any perceived or actual issues need to be addressed within those projects so that there is no conflict. I consider all "extended" project notability guidelines to be extensions and alternative not exclusions. We use the term "General Notability Guidelines" that could be considered a "minimum" expected criteria that states: If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article. However, broad community consensus has determined that "Subject-specific notability guidelines" should be established, Thus, we allow for the standalone article on the presumption that meeting the SNG criteria will guarantee the existence or creation of enough coverage to meet GNG.. This is when we look to see if not only a minimum of criteria is met but that an article conforms to other inclusion standards as well as those considered for "exclusion" such as What Wikipedia is not.

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

Rationale[edit]

In this case an editor has expressed interest in expanding coverage of topics on Wikipedia, expanded the article, and added sourcing. Sure, I would prefer to see editors with interest in what we consider more critical articles but I have championed things concerning wildlife and wildlife management so cannot let any bias lead to determine that country representative sports coverage is not important. However, I (and I hope everyone else) would want to see this editor find a happy home in expanding coverage here.

I will extend that the above mentioned WP:HEY should be offered to the editor and maybe even given a barnstar. The bottom line is that the nominator has had a change of mind or opinion (or doubts) with "I do believe that this has enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG now. Just about, anyway." Taking all this into account is the reason for a change of !vote. Otr500 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing to do with systematic bias. The issue is that the Swiss Challenge League is not a fully-professional league. I would happily vote to keep the article if it was, just as I would for a season article on a third division club in Germany or Japan. Number 5 7 15:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: From your point of view Number 57 that may be correct, that this has nothing to do with systemic bias, but some could argue a different point. I wasn't involved in the discussions of the deleted articles, and see that the article FC Winterthur has sourcing issues, I see that this team is listed in the List of football clubs in Switzerland as "fully professional", however, I didn't review the history to see if that was a recent change.

Looking at comments between Geschichte and Nfitz there is a missing rebuttal concerning "fully professional league" versus "professional". Also, the comments of Fundriver were not disputed. I also agree with Concertmusic including "fully" seems "a little strange to me", even though wording like "accurate details" or "complete and correct" are not a criteria for inclusion. Taking these things into consideration I do not see "That is why it has to be a fully professional league by Wikipedia standards.", is actually a criteria we are prepared to present as documented evidence for inclusion or exclusion.

However, the subject team plays as a Challenge League and can be promoted to the Super League apparently just by winning. I am also not convinced that the addition or omission of "fully" would be a reason for a bright line argument against WP:GNG. That may be a discussion to be had at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) but WP:NTEAM states: This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline. At least two editors agreed with my initial assessment and comments. I seem to have a horribly good record at arguing deletion so try to find exceptions. If the Nom would have had a change of opinion earlier we would not be having these discussions because the AFD could have been closed as withdrawn --right? From my initial assessment, to my change of !vote, and now after looking even more, I submit the team has notability (but better sourcing is needed), appears to be a "professional team (apparently even "fully" professional), and base my opinions on that. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it's not an area you have much experience editing in so you don't know the background, but it's been well-established from AfDs down the years, that when it comes to football, the 'professional' in NSEASONS is taken to mean 'fully-professional' – see e.g. this AfD from a couple of years ago. As you can see from this one, Nfitz is well aware of this, but has a long history of feigning ignorance of such consensus in AfDs. Number 5 7 09:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Leyton Orient AfD was a frustrating one. That article clearly passed WP:GNG and should not have been deleted. Seasons which pass WP:NSEASON are presumed to entitle articles. Seasons which don't must pass WP:GNG. It doesn't exclude anything. SportingFlyer T·C 09:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to this comparison between "fully professional" and "proffesional": On the latest since the reduction of the Challenge League in 2012 from 16 to only ten teams in 2012 -but in my opinion also before- you can consider the league as fully professional, even if I still don't get what excactly you want to point out by this difference. But I read above the german third division as example for a fully professional league, than you also can consider Challenge League as fully professional. Also in there, with entering this league the teams are considered to be in professional fooball, even if teams like SC Verl have a little budget and need to play with many youth players to be able to survive in the league. As it is in the Swiss Challenge League.

The clubs in the Swiss challenge league need professional structures, as an own Aktiengesellschaft for the professional football, so that they can go bancrupt without affecting the youth of the club. And I think every source you consider will tell you, that this is a professional league and if you search for semi-professional swiss leagues, you can find stuff like the third-tier Promotion League in football or the top-division leagues of Handball or Floorball. In those leagues you can find stuff like some players that get jobs as a rewards or cars and on the other hand players, that are fully professional. Fundriver (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources proving that the Challenge League is fully professional, then start a discussion at WP:FPL to get the league added to the list. Number 5 7 12:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only am I not aware of that User:Number 57, I actually think you are wrong on the issue. And really, if you are going to violate the rules here, and make personal attacks, weeks later, the least you could do is ping me. I don't know how a fifth-tier league is even comparable to a second-tier league. And I see that you also failed AGF in that article as well. Is it time for a topic-ban for repeated violations of a critical Wikipedia pillar over a minor content dispute? Nfitz (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments[edit]

@Number 57: You are correct that this is an area of which I have little to no "experience editing". I am sometimes too good with policies and guidelines but have not been involved in WP:FPL. The first thing I see on that page is consistent with [there are exceptions to every "rule"] such as this list can be used as an aid in considering the WP:NFOOTBALL guideline as well as a red flag of The lists are currently incomplete and some entries are lacking sources. Since my time on Wikipedia I know few things are written in stone. I also appreciate a WikiProject that gives strong criteria rather than attempts to water down WP:GNG. I also don't want there to be "stringent rules" that become a bright-line of "this way or nothing".

In this case I see an "exception". I had a discussion (I feel productive) with an Admin about deletions and realized I actually had a horribly good record in deletion discussions. I haven't looked in a long time but even here there was agreement of my rationale that was echoed by two editors. THEN--- an editor made changes (added prose and references), covered most concerns (still has some referencing issues), and I see article improvement, an editor willing to collaborate, and would hope there would be a decision to get involved in more areas. This editor may ONLY want to work on particular articles but that is alright also. Let's throw a bone when it is due and discuss the short-comings or needed additions where it is relevant.

Now, since I am not an "expert", I will not likely seek to have an addition made to the WP:FPL list. I will gladly (and impartially) join a discussion if pinged. At the least there does need to be some clarification. Also, we can always revisit this later. Thank you all, -- Otr500 (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo and thank you Otr500 for your conributions. I have never joined in such discussions before and will probably keep out in future. But thanks for the contributions, these give me a lot to think about and will help me in future articles and edits. Greetings from Switzerland and have a nice week-end --Huligan0 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I would like to say thank you to everybody. This was an experience. --Huligan0 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, by making it an experience for everyone, and verbally assaulting those that don't go away, is how bullies get their way. Wikipedia is poison for civility and common sense. And those that survive it without loosing their cool, end up running the place. Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Lobo[edit]

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

Non notable actor who doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR as they haven’t had any significant roles in movies or won any notable awards. Furthermore the actor lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus fails to satisfy WP:GNG also. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lobo had such minor roles in the films mentioned that he does not show up on the cast list. I am less than convinced showing up on the cast list means that the part was significant, it you do not make the cast list your part was not significant, there is no notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR guidelines. Quitede (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NACTOR and GNG Spiderone 22:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NACTOR/GNG guidelines at this time.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly keep - He does appear to be notable; he has a substantial page on the German Wikipedia: de:Carlos Lobo. He is a German actor of Spanish descent; his most significant work appears to be German dubbed parts (he did the voice of Javier Bardem in Eat Pray Love, for instance). He has also worked on stage internationally. But this article is so short of content and confused that it may make more sense to delete and start over when someone is so inclined. Rigadoun (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree for the article to be deleted but still !voted a Possible Keep? Regardless, if an actor doesn’t satisfy NACTOR or GNG they may not be notable enough to have a standalone on Wikipedia, if you have any proof to the contrary you may provide us with three reliable sources that substantiates their notability or show what criterion from NACTOR they meet. Celestina007 (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the hope that someone will spend some time on expanding the article. The actor is prolific in Germany in small to medium roles - his claim to fame may be that he is always the German voice-over choice for roles played by Javier Bardem. He is also busy in other voice-over work of the likes of Antonio Banderas, amongst others. There appears to be enough material to flesh this out if so desired.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 20:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mangelrogel[edit]

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

BLP of Youtuber which does not meet WP:NBIO. Sources are routine entertainment news items describing events that aren't notable (such as participating in a tournament, friendships with other Youtube publishers). MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable youtuber. Delete them and all other non-notable potatoes. I hope people get my odd joke.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see more and more AfDs on YouTubers. When I check the suggested searches on many of these articles, especially the News search, I get a large number of returns - several hundred in most cases. I am starting to get suspicious that this subject matter needs an evaluation as to what is reliable in the YouTube space - and I am certainly not qualified to make that call. In this case, the fact that many of the news links are in Spanish also doesn't help me. Having said that, it appears that this article is about a well-known, dare I say notable, figure in that particular space. If we have someone with expertise in YouTube able to comment, that would be great.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I agree that GNG for YouTubers and other e-sonalities definitely needs to be reexamined, and I am generally sympathetic to subjects like this, I just don't see anything in the way of asserted notability. Has he done anything besides appear in a single music video? jp×g 04:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El Polimata[edit]

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

After observing it flagged for notability concerns I performed a before search which shows this musician lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him to warrant a standalone at the moment. Furthermore this article is borderline G11 eligible. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My opinion on this article I was looking for information based on this article, which comes from a Dominican singer. I got into their social networks and some databases. I am opposed to its removal. since it will be a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmenormcrd (talk • contribs)
Delete. The same article (albeit not posted this time from an account with the artist's name) that's already earned two A7 speedy deletions and still merits that but, since they keep trying and this discussion has been launched, let's finish this up, salt the article, and make it final. Not notable. Largoplazo (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't sources on Google that indicated notability. Erick (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy musical notability criteria. Previous deletions do not count. This article should be assessed on its merits (or lack of merits). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Omar Brito de Jesús, known as El Polimata, is a singer from the Caribbean island of the Dominican Republic. Find articles and information about this person and comply with the policies of staying on wikipedia. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmenormcrd (talk • contribs)

Comment — @Elmenormcrd, thanks but you aren’t permitted to !vote twice. Could you be so kind as to strike one out? Celestina007 (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contiene citas relevantes (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.36.193.22 (talk)

Comment — IP above has three edits with its first edit being straight to the article nominated for deletion and the third being this !vote. Celestina007 (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apparently it is an element of trust. the person contains relevant articles, contains criteria of musical notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.166.255.199 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— IP above has its first and only edit being a keep !vote to this AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment After !voting "delete" above, I noticed a large number of source being added to the article. I just reviewed a number of them and discovered that eight or nine of them are really three articles reprinted in multiple locations, one of them in four or five places. As most of the appearances of these have the by-line "Admin" or "The Editors", it gives the impression of being PR material that was passed around. So I've chosen not to change my !vote above. Largoplazo (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo, thanks for the pertinent observations in the article. You’d also notice that this AFD itself has some rather bizarre activities by IPs. Celestina007 (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biodegradable athletic footwear[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:OR, the refs discuss biodegradable polymers in a general sense but aren't directly related to the topic. The breakdown of EVA is show as taking place at 350-450°C, hardly biological temperatures. The 'Biodegradable materials' section doesn't give any evidence that the materials mentioned are actually used in shoe-making. It is well written but it is a synthesis. Project Osprey (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Biodegradable footwear or, more broadly, Eco-friendly footwear. Both are featured in reliable sources, but two articles may be one too many at this point:

Eco-friendly[45][46]
Biodegradable[47][48][49][50]

Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom that there seems to be a lot of synthesis in the article, but the topic does seem notable, as mentioned by Clarityfiend. Supporting keeping with rename to Biodegradable footwear. "Eco-friendly footwear" would be very broad.VR _talk 21:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep, but rework into the more general option as suggested. -gtrmp (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be a very good encyclopedia article. The section labeled as synthesis appears relevant to explain some of the points made earlier in the article. I have no real issue with a Rename, even though the article does seem to be specific to athletic footwear - as long as we keep the very useful information contained here.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Harris[edit]

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

Article about a voice-over artist with no references or citations. Much of the article appears to have been written and kept up-to-date by a single user who only edits this page and related pages (usually to add a link to this page), leading me to believe that it is a self-written article. CallLetters (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CallLetters (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CallLetters (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CallLetters (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article lacks reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if they are "in demand", working actors still must pass either WP:GNG, or at least WP:NACTOR. This one doesn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eighty thousand radio ads and zero sources??? Absolutely nothing on this guy that I could find online. I mean, he's got a common name, but still... jp×g 04:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ben X Jim. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Martin Angeles[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ben X Jim where he is more well known as part of its cast. — Emperork (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ben X Jim: Per Emperork. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above, and WP:CHEAP, since they fail both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Badabun[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable outside of the controversy listed in the Controversy section of the article. letcreate123 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - one of thousands of controversial YouTube channels. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - They are one of the largest and (by the important metric of raw subscribers) most successful media channels on the internet; I don't think it's fair to suggest they are not notable simply because the article largely focuses on their controversies - nor do I think the fact something is controversial negates their actual notability. That said, the article as it stands is largely about a single set of controversies. I think there's a proper article to be had on this topic, it just needs to focus on the actual channel rather than a single incident. See WP:NPOSSIBLE. -Rushyo ^Talk 23:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subscriber counts mean absolutely nothing in terms of notability. Subscribers can be bought, can be a mix of bots/multiple accounts and there is no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 November 18.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep look at the sources on the Spanish version of the article. Obviously meets GNG. (t · c) buidhe 12:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've translate the page from the Spanish Wikipedia, It's in this draft. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 19:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete article does not meet GNG, subscriber counts don't make one 'notable' and the event that is described in the article seems to be a one-time/black swan type event. WP:GNG indicates that signficant coverage for more than one even is requiredd to fully meet GNG.Star7924 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Star7924: I'm not debating too much about this article, but I'm re-opening this AfD more for debate the Draft:Badabun, which obviously passes WP:GNG, with coverage of media like El País or Infobae. I'm NOT debating about the speedy deletion candidate mainspace article of Badabun, which losses on non notables facts like the fake Badabun speedrun and don't talk about the history of the company. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 20:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Repeat comment on YouTube-related content: I see more and more AfDs on YouTuber items. When I check the suggested searches on many of these articles, especially the News search, I get a large number of returns - several hundred in most cases. I am starting to get suspicious that this subject matter needs an evaluation as to what is reliable in the YouTube space - and I am certainly not qualified to make that call. In this case, the fact that many of the news links are in Spanish also doesn't help me. Having said that, it appears that this article is about a well-known, even notable, entity in that particular space. If we have someone with expertise in YouTube able to comment, that would be great.
Keep The original reasoning given by User:letcreate123 seems slightly weak to me, given the existence of quite a few sources that mention Badabun, enough that deletion makes less sense. In addition, many things that are not originally newsworthy become newsworthy because of controversy, and that's okay. Egroeg5 (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just look at the sourcing on the Spanish language article, obvious WP:GNG pass. Remember, this is not an english-language channel, sourcing will largely not be in English. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There is more than subscriber count going on here! jp×g 05:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Mason (finance)[edit]

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

a good deal of pr, written entirely in PR-talk " a new strategy for the charity " "continued her involvement with social investing" and work for various groups, but with no specific notability.

Being member of a Board is not notability, and generaly not even worth mentioning in an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be kept. There are two issues here. 1. Is Caroline Mason notable? 2. Is the page written appropriately?

To address notability first. I think that the award of CBE indicates significance. The UKGov site says that Commander of the Order of the British Empire is awarded to people who have made a distinguished, innovative contribution to any area or are leaders in national or regional life in the UK. This award is recommended by a Cabinet Office committee of the UK government after reports.^[1] Wikipedia says the number is limited to 8,960 people (although I can't see that number on the source given; it certainly is not a lot of people compared with the UK population (about 67 million)). I would argue that award of CBE indicates notability supported by good evidence. This type of well-known award is specifically included in the Wikipedia list of notability criteria (The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.), although is not conclusive proof. I like Caroline Mason's inclusion in the BBC Radio 4 Woman's Hour Power list 2020^[2] because this annual list (of 30 people in 2020) is a second award but from very different judges and relates to women who have made a significant contribution to sustainability or the environment. The award is from an organisation generally considered to be a reliable souce of information. Together with articles in reliable newspapers like the Independent and Guardian, I think that there is a very strong case that she is notable.
The second question is to consider whether the page is written appropriately. Obviously, writing style and content for a notable person can be changed until there is a consensus that it is satisfactory. Of course, I thought that my first go at the page was appropriate, but I understand your comments. It is always good to have a second opinion. I notice that it is OK to change the text while deletion is being considered. I have therefore removed the phrases you indicated were PR-talk. Do you have any further advice on style or content?--MerielGJones (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note The references used here arealmostthe same as for [Esmée Fairbairn Foundation]], an even more promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipient of the CBE, which has always been considered to qualify for WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above, and trim. Artw (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Artw and Necrothesp. –Cupper52^Discuss! December 2020-present
Keep, as recipients of CBE almost always are kept. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Crimson Thorn. Missvain (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unearthed (Crimson Thorn album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-notable Crimson Thorn album. Unlike Purification and Dissection, it wasn't tagged for notability, so I tagged it because it's not notable. The article is sourced solely to metal archives, which is user-generated and not reliable. The Allmusic page is just a track listing + user reviews, which does not establish any notability either. (The band has a biography page there though.) A Google search only revealed more user-generated sites, plus youtube videos, streaming links, blogs and download links. So this article is plagued by the same problem as the other two album articles: no reliable sources are available. A redirect to Crimson Thorn is all this is worth. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crimson Thorn. The album does not seem to have significant coverage, but this is a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artist, as it fails WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Crimson Thorn in support of the comment above by Aoba47.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Crimson Thorn. Missvain (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purification (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable Crimson Thorn album. Like I said at the Dissection AfD, they are awesome but the albums are not notable. Tagged for notability since 2013. During a Google search I only found the standard user-generated stuff, streaming links and retail sites. A redirect to Crimson Thorn is all this is worth. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It could be inc'ed in the band's page, but certainly does not need a separate page. Kolma8 (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crimson Thorn as it could be a viable search term. It does not appear to have enough significant coverage to support a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist, as it doesn't pass WP:NALBUM.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Crimson Thorn in support of the comment above by Aoba47.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Hall[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally, WP:GNG, and WP:NCOLLATH. I cannot find any significant coverage for this subject. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our very low notability standards for players of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm seeing some mentions from his college playing days, but I don't think it really adds up to anything substantial. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I received a notice on my talk page because I moved the article from wherever it was to begin with. Doesn't seem notable. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom. My searches did not find significant coverage either. Cbl62 (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayali Sanjeev[edit]

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

Was previously deleted after a general consensus in AFD[51] The newly added sources do not show notability and the subject still fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing how WP:NACTOR is being met, not enough for WP:GNG Ravensfire (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: A few minor roles, nothing significant for her. VocalIndia (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Komedia#Brighton. Missvain (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dukes at Komedia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILD. The cinema is non-notable and dosen't have much media coverage by reliable sources. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This could probably redirect to Komedia#Brighton, with some small select bits of info merged into the respective section. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above using The Guardian source which is significant reliable source coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per both comments above - which appears to be a great solution to keep the relevant information presented here.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Battalion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Fecteau[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't qualify for WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nommer is clearly a much nicer and better person than I am — I would have requested speedy on this, as I can't see one single thing suggesting importance of any sort. (I do get a whiff of vanity and/or COI editing, though, although no evidence thereof, obvs.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO, so just get rid of it, and looking at the creator's talk page, maybe salt as well? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete state board of education members are not default notable. I live in Detroit, and have lived in Michigan essentially my entire life. I have never heard of Fecteau at all, and I keep up with politics. Michigan elects a huge number of boards state wide, not just the board of education, but 3 university boards. We do not consider all holders of such positions notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a resume. Nothing notable that I can see, beyond what I would expect from another person in her same position. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although a statewide elected position, I don't think being a member of the board of education is enough to pass WP:NPOL automatically; she would need WP:GNG-based in-depth coverage of her and her political positions (rather than mere mentions of those topics in broader articles about something else). We currently don't have sources like that and I didn't find any on searching. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 17:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMAUG[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was a soft delete, but nothing has changed in this incarnation of the article. No evidence of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick note, the article was brought back by the project's owner, self-disclosed COI. -- ferret (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that further COI editing has occurred since the AFD began. -- ferret (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a web-server. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try to leave a valid policy backed argument for deletion. Plenty of web servers are notable. Nor is this even a web server. -- ferret (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable within its domain -- MUD servers and is notable by its historical context within the genre. --Thoric (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As I'm sure you know, if you're calling it notable, you'll have to demonstrate that it meets one of our notability criteria. See WP:GNG and/or one of the subject-specific guidelines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and salt Salt is due to COI editing and apparent meatpuppetry. I've searched quite a bit this morning, including through WP:VG/S's source lists and just open searches, book searches, etc. I can find little to nothing that focuses directly on SMAUG, the server. It is almost always mentioned in passing as the server behind Realms of Despair. ~~As such, redirect it to Realms of Despair and merge the basic lead details as necessary.~~ The feature list can be dropped out. Also, courtsey ping to last AFD nom, Lee Vilenski. -- ferret (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ferret: Just for clarification, to what article would you propose to merge this? BD2412 T 01:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BD2412: I was suggesting Realms of Despair but failed to wikilink it. While Czar may be correct that Realms of Despair has its own unsurmountable issues, this is the SMAUG AFD, not the Realms of Despair AFD. One thing at a time, if you will. -- ferret (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That seems reasonable. If Realms of Despair is not itself independently notable, I expect that both articles can be merged to something a bit farther up the ladder on the history of MUDs, generally. BD2412 T 01:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - And then the redirect would be deleted when no reliable source gives us a sentence worth mentioning SMAUG in one of those parent articles? czar 04:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The standard for including a line about a topic in an article is, of course, substantially lower than the standard for having a separate article on that topic. Koster's timeline will suffice for that. BD2412 T 17:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated merge target, from the Realms of Despair AFD: Merge up to DikuMUD as part of a dual merger with Realms of Despair, similar to how Merc (MUD) was. I'm fine with a Delete result though, as GNG isn't going to be met. I believe we can manage a paragraph at DikuMUD though on the topic of SMAUG/ROD. @BD2412: Courtesy ping, not sure if you meant to leave a !Vote or not. -- ferret (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I still don't see how this is any more notable than the last time I nominated this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Realms of Despair is not a good merge target as that topic has similar sourcing issues. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 08:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:IAR to preserve a part of the internet's history that will never be covered in reliable sources to the level editors desire. An insignificant river that no one ever asked for can have an article because it appears on some database but the backbone of a "popular" MUD gets failed for a notability standard that is likely impossible for any niche but useful/relevant/interesting software to meet. Slywriter (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our bar for keeping MUD articles is already super low and the Internet loves writing about niche software, so that part doesn't ring true. The question is, if this is important, where is its reliable source coverage? It's fine to cover this within an existing topic, theoretically, based on how it's covered in sourcing, but not seeing a case for that either. czar 04:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how with such a "low" bar, that you consider Realms of Despair and/or SMAUG non-notable when over 5% of all MUDs are using SMAUG code. The public release of the SMAUG source code was considered to be one of the "significant events for the development of virtual worlds", and has had hundreds of thousands of downloads. --Thoric (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thoric, Do you have a source for that significant events quote? If something that meets Wikipedia's standards says that you might change some minds here. MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, it comes from Raph Koster's Online World Timeline --Thoric (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You consider this "significant in depth" coverage? A single sentence saying "it was released"? -- ferret (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most MUDs are not notable because they lack sufficient sourcing from reliable publications. This is one of them. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 05:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The entry of SMAUG in the timeline of MUD games I believe is notable. The timeline stretches back to 1962. Could any of the people who are unhappy with this article please suggest improvements? Reduce the features list? Add a paragraph on where SMAUG fits in the constellation of MUD games? The combination of sufficient notability and an improved article should result in a KEEP and a protection from further deletion proposals, for a while, at least. I have read the first deletion and it was not sufficiently considered. So no weight should be given to this being a second nomination. Mediation4u ^(chat)_{nb: editing is fun} 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you looking for in improvements like 'reducing the features list', 'add a paragraph', etc? AFD is not cleanup. We're only here to evaluate WP:N, and the article state is not in question. The timeline, while interesting for placement over the decades, does not provide any significant coverage. In fact, it doesn't even provide more than a single sentence saying literally "it was released". The timeline at best could be used to source the release year of the server, and provides nothing to WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking for article cleanup, then an AFD discussion isn't the place to put it. What can even be improved here? It doesn't establish any notability and the only sources are passing mentions. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 03:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ferret. I see your point. Searching for notability in sources which would be 16 years old is, indeed, going to be tricky. Well done for merging some of the content to the other article. It is good that the best content is not lost. I fear that I have never seen a deletion discussion turn around. Human nature is to look for the negative in Wikipedia articles, and pile on with the critics. So I'll add a Merge and redirect vote. Many thanks for saving some of the content from falling into the abyss. How apt that it has fallen into the realms of despair. Mediation4u ^(chat)_{nb: editing is fun} 01:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it fails the WP:GNG, and none of these keep arguments even begin to formulate a valid counterpoint. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Realms of Despair and add a redirect from SMAUG, combining them into a stronger (and better sourced) article. KaVir (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realms of Despair czar 07:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability standards; does not satisfy WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:IAR to preserve a part of the internet's history as well... Roberth Martinez (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that even mean? Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to DikuMUD, per the existence of a mention-worthy source and WP:ATD. BD2412 T 18:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Realms of Despair (or to DikuMUD if that also gets merged away). -gtrmp (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've merged some details into DikuMUD already, as WP:V can be met for the basic facts. See this diff. -- ferret (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't say anything about this apart from "SMAUG was derived from DikuMUD," what value does such a statement provide to our readers? If sources do not discuss anything about the impact of being derived from DikuMUD, why would we even mention it? It reads like that sentence is shoehorned in to placate participants in this AfD but there is no textual basis for its inclusion. czar 05:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMAUG, was released nearly 24 years ago, and has been the basis of hundreds of other MUDs over the years, and also spawned several derivative code bases (AFKMUD, SERF, SmaugWiz, SmaugFUSS, SWR, SWR2, SWRFuss, etc), which also went on to support many MUDs still active today. As far as what it had specifically contributed to the DikuMUD -> Merc lineage, this is of course not unknown, but would have to be sourced to the source code itself, which is public and open, and should be citable. Source code does not lie, and is unbiased. If the feature can be found within the source code, then that should be an acceptable source. Thus, I mention these few things to be found in the SMAUG source code, to distinct it from it's parent, Merc2.1, and its grandparent, DikuMUD: complete online creation for every single feature including even spells -- magic spells could be created and edited in game, repairable equipment, a clan system, a PK system (player killing), object grouping, object and equipment layering, corpse saving (across crashed and reboots), pet saving, projectiles, mounts, unlimited online message and bulletin boards, etc, etc, too many to list, but available in summary here https://www.smaug.org/features.html, and yes, I know that link can't be a citation, but the original released source code should be citable. The SMAUG code introduced a lot of features not available in other public code bases. There is no contest to this, and it shouldn't have to be published in a half dozen books when the source code is there for all to see. --Thoric (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the source code of hundreds of MUDs is exactly the type of original research we do not allow from WP editors. All we need to cite your above claim is a single reliable, independent source that says so. If the claim is noteworthy, it should not be hard to find one such source that says so. czar 21:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about comparing the source code of hundreds of MUDs, just being able to cite the source code for existence of a feature. If DikuMUD and Merc's feature sets are already established, then to cite the SMAUG source code as the source for it having feature X, Y, and Z is not original research. SMAUG's source code is freely available. There are quite a number of articles for open source projects, such as GIMP, and oh look, nearly half of the citations are from the gimp.org website... --Thoric (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing any source code is original research. And you're right, GIMP is in bad shape. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We paraphrase reliable, secondary sources. Your claims require the same standard of support. czar 21:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I never said compare. For certain things, citing the primary source is acceptable -- books, songs, paintings, and why not source code? The requirement of secondary sources only is more important for things that are POV. If we start looking at open source projects, then you've got a lot of work ahead of you, as most of them use primary source citations... GNU_Compiler_Collection --Thoric (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you're getting that. Secondary sources are required, not optional... We only use primary sources in extremely limited circumstances, not for original claims and not for the bulk of an article. Yes, open source projects tend to be overgrown with primary sources on Wikipedia. You're welcome to contribute to them. czar 03:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the first citation not acceptable for this? The MUD FAQs were regularly published to the Usenet mud groups for years, and were at the time the primary trusted source of information: https://www.mudconnect.com/mudfaq/mudfaq-p4.html#smaug — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:316:39B7:3DB9:2484:55E5:7B6 (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can post to Usenet. It's self-published (by non-experts, yes?) with no process for fact-checking or history of editorial pedigree. It's no different from me spinning up a page on a wiki and calling it an FAQ. Read about our reliable source policy for more. czar 03:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DikuMUD as has been done. There's just enough name dropping + slightly more details I can find in books and academic research to make this a search term and thus something we should document, but not for a standalone article. I think the current section on DikuMUD is reasonable for that. --Masem (t) 16:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Krauss-Maffei Wegmann. czar 08:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Degen und Wiegand KARL[edit]

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

A minor steam locomotive, with no claim of importance. No sign of notability, either, hence fails WP:N. All based on a single source, and a search found nothing more (apart from a few wikis, at least one of which mirrors this), so fails WP:V as well. If there were an A7 category for rail locomotives I would have requested speedy, but alas there isn't, so here we are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ~~Krauss-Maffei~~ Krauss-Maffei Wegmann. Provides extra content and reference ~~that the merge target badly needs. Merge target should be cleaned up from warnings after merge.~~ gidonb (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought of that, but the K-M company is in a different line of business altogether, and was only set up 50 years after the said locomotive was built, so this might not easily fit there. If there were an article on the original Krauss company, that's where this should IMO be merged into, but there isn't, and putting it into Georg Krauß might again be a bridge too far. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Krauss-Maffei Wegmann is the railway company in its current form. Nightfury 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well spotted, I missed that. Merging there would seem like the most sensible option to me. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As discussed. Not notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuo Hiramatsu[edit]

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

BLP with no secondary sources. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 14:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 14:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: ~~Strong keep~~: Sourcing only to primary sources, if those sources are reliable, is not a reason to delete a page that has presumed notability under WP:NACADEMIC. It is also not an accurate description of this page, since both sources currently cited are secondary, and the news article looks independent. As the president of a large university, a member of national advisory councils, and the president of a major professional society, he passes NACADEMIC criterion #6 and surely passes several others. And a WP:BEFORE, including looking at the Japanese page, shows that secondary sources exist even if they aren't yet included. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He is also not alive, so his page is not a BLP. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would be more accurate for me to !vote Speedy Keep per WP:CSK: the nomination rationale is that secondary sources are needed for a BLP, but the page is not a BLP, and all of its sources are secondary. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C6, possibly speedy as the nominator appears not to have even considered WP:PROF notability and secondary sources are not required for that kind of notability. Additionally the nominator appears not to have done WP:BEFORE as even the most cursory and obvious thing one might try (checking the Japanese-language version) finds more sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but references certainly need to be improved. Deb (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the president of a university, passes WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minoru Iwaki[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence of being able to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. There is no profile page on Soccerway or Global Sports Archive or anywhere, really. There is a profile on the unreliable Transfermarkt with the wrong DOB with no recorded appearances. If he played, there should be a database recording it as the Singapore Premier League is covered well. Spiderone 13:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, meet Wikipedia guidelines only nominally, not substantially. Geschichte (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are not enough reliable citations to prove that a complete article can be written on this subject. BritishProfessor (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Kataoka[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; has never played a match for Albirex according to Soccerway. Even the unreliable Transfermarkt doesn't have any appearances recorded. Spiderone 13:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, meet Wikipedia guidelines only nominally, not substantially. Geschichte (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satoru Matsuki[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; has never played a match for Albirex according to Soccerway. Even the unreliable Transfermarkt doesn't have any appearances recorded. Spiderone 12:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, meet Wikipedia guidelines only nominally, not substantially. Geschichte (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Burrows[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is from technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL for playing 39 minutes of professional football for Yeovil; two totally inconsequential substitute appearances. I could find no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG from these appearances alone and he had no subsequent career in non-league as he decided to retire almost immediately after those games. There is a growing consensus that footballers that only just pass NFOOTY can and should be deleted if GNG is comprehensively failed. Spiderone 12:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when there is a complete lack of coverage, failing GNG. Alternatively redirect to List of Yeovil Town F.C. players or similar, as that is only claim to fame. Giant Snowman 12:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this person meets our football notability guidelines they are clearly too broad to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better to have a complete set of articles here for WP:NFOOTBALL than maintain a complete set on another site and a separate incomplete set here. Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article, there's no reason to say they shouldn't be as a reason to keep an article. Peter James (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the very top of WP:NFOOTBALL, it says This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. NFOOTBALL is merely a guideline to help us decide whether something will pass WP:GNG. If someone comprehensively fails GNG, it's fair to say that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient. Burrows is an amateur footballer who just so happened to play 39 minutes of a game between two professional teams. I agree with User:GiantSnowman and User:Johnpacklambert and think that we need to use WP:COMMONSENSE in cases like this one. Spiderone 19:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter James: having a 'complete set' is one thing, but only if sources can sustain that - which they can't here. Giant Snowman 19:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the content is verifiable and has a purpose it can be kept. The rules contradict each other, and there are good reasons to keep and delete but nothing to be gained with deletion. At least one has to be ignored, and the policy is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, not Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (with the exception of WP:CORPDEPTH for organisations and WP:GNG for everything else). Peter James (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how Burrows warrants a stand-alone article in this encyclopaedia. Please bear in mind that we are not a sports almanac. Please also explain which Wikipedia policy states that Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article Spiderone 10:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Wikipedia is not footballpedia. There is no reason for us to have a "complete set" of anything that includes articles on which victually nothing is substantiated, or who get into the category by the skin of their teeth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In 100 articles from Special:Random, one was a footballer, and three were other football-related articles (two seasons and a stadium), but 31 articles were related to the United States - is that "footballpedia"? Peter James (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how anyone can sensibly deny that Wikipedia has a bias towards Anglosphere topics generally of questionable notability. These non-notable Mansfield players are a particularly egregious example. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wholly non-notable in the context of a general encyclopaedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the keep argument is completely baseless, vs. at least 70 AFDs that provide precedence for such deletion. Geschichte (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Meredith Music Festival. Missvain (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Meredith Music Festival lineups by year[edit]

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

This does not meet any of our inclusion guidelines for stand-alone lists.

WP:LISTN - this is not covered significantly by reliable sources independent of the subject
WP:LISTPURP - this list is not a valuable information source, it does not assist in navigation (note that many of the artists don't even have a Wikipedia article) and it does not aid in development of the encyclopaedia
WP:SALAT - I don't believe that this list meets the principles outlined here
WP:NOTMIRROR - Wikipedia strongly discourages articles that are just mirrors of the primary source Spiderone 12:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Meredith Music Festival, easily incorporated there and unquestionably relevant. That page's editors can determine whether it's appropriate detail or should be trimmed. So there's absolutely no reason to go through a deletion analysis or process. This is true of so many AFDs we see for subpages or subtopics like this, people really need to be considering WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A merge was suggested by another user on the article's talk page but the idea didn't really take off. These sorts of articles have been brought to AfD before and they have resulted in delete, delete, delete and redirect. A lot of those didn't have much participation so these lists still lack consensus as to whether they can be notable. Spiderone 20:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a SPLIT question in my view, and where the original article is so small as here that it can be merged so easily there's no need for a split. So separate notability (whatever that even means for such a subtopic) is moot. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this page can be merged with the Meredith Music Festival page.Clackwork (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Merging this list to the festival's article would merely change the location of a list that is unnecessary in the first place. The present list article is entirely dependent on the festival's own website (which by the way is a violation of WP:PRIMARY), and that site merely offers simple lists of acts who played there. This is not a reason to reproduce the same lists in Wikipedia with no additional commentary or analysis, and that is true if the list is its own article or part of the festival article. No matter where it appears, the list remains non-notable for the reasons spelled out quite nicely by the nominator, and simply playing at the festival is not a notable fact that has been reported upon by any reliable media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability requires secondary sourcing, but there's no such requirement for all content within an article about a notable topic, and certainly no absolute prohibition on using primary sources. Whether it should remain in Meredith Music Festival (a page none of us have edited or discussed outside of this AFD) should be addressed through normal editing and discussion. I doubt also that a notable festival received no coverage of who was playing at that festival, but I also think that's not relevant here. postdlf (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Meredith Music Festival. This is an obvious alternative to deletion which must be considered first before just deleting the page. Deus et lex (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Meredith Music Festival where it is valid content in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Museums[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage is of routine events and from local media outlets. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ITSAMUSEUM. Museums and other public attractions always get coverage in newspapers and tourist guides. It's only been open for a month, and there are already two articles about it in The Seattle Times, both cited in the article. "Local coverage" doesn't apply to the Seattle metropolitan area, which is the 15th largest city in the US and a major tourist draw. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:ITSAMUSEUM and WP:GNG ~RAM (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons Toughpigs cited. -gtrmp (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mantes (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only one match and two partials. Not even worth a hatnote. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There were actually two matches and one partial. The French version has more matches, I added 1. Geschichte (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being "part of the name" violates WP:partial title match worse than usual. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The extra parts of the Mantes names are themselves disambiguators. The root is Mantes. Geschichte (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Partial title match, "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Mantes is not really a part of the name, it is the name, but a name that needs disambiguating, and the French have made up these disambiguators. Articles should not have 3-4 hatnotes. Geschichte (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; they do look like PTMs, but I believe Geschicte is correct, that the French-style place names with dashes are a form of natural disambiguators, so those (or at least the first three) are ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JHunterJ, specific names are valid entries on DAB pages per WP:PTM where "Mantes" is like "Carolina" in this case note that the DAB page exists on the French Wikipedia and 3 others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wyze Labs, Inc.. Missvain (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wyze products[edit]

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

Highly promotional article that is a blatant violation of WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTBROCHURE.

Per WP:NOTCATALOG "Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention". This article fails that test, as its sources are all either product reviews or the company's own website. Tdl1060 (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tdl1060 (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Tdl1060 (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the sources cited were product announcements, not just product reviews. This topic is notable and I do not believe it violates WP:CATALOG because it is providing clearly encyclopedic information about the products. I also don't see your argument about WP:BROCHURE because this article has a neutral tone and is not promoting any product. The core argument is whether this article is notable or not, it clearly is. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 07:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I believe that the third step in the AfD process was flat-out ignored in this case. "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted." Please read WP:BEFORE.

Another point, per WP:PRODUCT "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." This clearly satisfies that. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 07:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous points, if deemed not notable, information should be atleast merged into the main Wyze article because it is easily encyclopedic. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 07:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of Wyze Labs itself is a separate issue that itself is questionable. Nevertheless, it is true that information on Wyze Labs' products could be included in its article. Its article is barely more than a stub, making this article completely unwarranted. However, the product information that is in this article and was in the Wyze Labs article before I removed it is highly promotional in tone and contains product availability and pricing information, thus violating WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTBROCHURE.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This is merely a list of products made by the company, none of which are notable themselves. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wyze Labs, Inc. per above. NavjotSR (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 30 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) 04:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG, it is just a list of products.David (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I have not done a detailed search for sources so will not comment on whether this topic passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
List of Wyze products can be merged to Wyze Labs, Inc.#Products if the topic is determined to be non-notable.
Cunard (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wyze Labs, Inc. per above arguments. MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 09:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wyze Labs, Inc. Dtaylor05 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Source analysis is compelling Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinkmarkets[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4, and per WP:DEL14. Generic. scope_creep^Talk 07:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to have received significant coverage by independent sources, which meets GNG (there is an Australian Financial Review article and some other independent coverage). I don't agree this is an advertisement either - the real question is whether it is notable. Deus et lex (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't look promotional. Even if it does, can be fixed. The topic has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and thus passes WP:GNG.Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never said it was promotional.I'll go through the references later today to determine if this very small private is truly notable instead of being one of many thousands and hundreds of brokerage firms in existence. scope_creep^Talk 15:18, 3 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) 04:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets look at the references

* [52] ThinkMarkets UK revenue for 2017 came in at £3.79 million (USD $5 million), versus £3.82 million in 2016. Net Profit was £189,000, up from £125,000. Client Assets at year end were £3.9 million, up slightly from £3.8 million as at the end of 2016. Dependent source. Fails WP:SIRS

* [53] ThinkMarkets Taps Jenner Partner f employees, officers, directors, owners, or shareholders (see above for #No inherited notability), Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

* [54] Routine announcement.Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

* [55] Routine announcement of IPO that never arrived. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

* [56] FinanceFeeds speaks in detail to CEO Nauman Anees Fails WP:ORGIND

* [57] Paywall

* [58] The CEO and co-founder of ThinkMarkets, Nauman Anees, spoke exclusively with Finance Magnates on the launch Interview Fails WP:ORGIND

* [59] Paywall, but IPO talk

* [60] Interview. Fails WP:ORGIND.

Not a single reference in the first block are decent. They all fail WP:NCORP. The award is non-notable. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 13:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue NCORP is not met if you want but the other two arguments are untrue. In any case, this does meet GNG as set out above - the AFR paywalled article has a significant section about the company and its IPO. And the fact that the interview is exclusive does not make it an unreliable source. None of these articles are advertisements. Deus et lex (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They have been talking doing an IPO for fully three years and one reference doesn't make an article. So it is still a small private company article that fails WP:NCORP. Also it might noticing per WP:N that consensus is now that CNG does not apply in these instances of company articles, it is WP:NCORP only. It one company of this types of thousands. It is entirely generic. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of your arguments are arguments for deletion, the IPO coverage shows notability whether you like it or not, and "generic" is not a reason for deletion. This passes GNG. Deus et lex (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again GNG doesn't apply to company articles, it is WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 11:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where on the GNG page does it say that? Deus et lex (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the WP:N. There is discussion the last couple of weeks. Worth reading up. scope_creep^Talk 01:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion doesn't mean that the policy has changed, where is there a specific exception to GNG about companies on the page (I'm genuinely asking as I can't see it)? Deus et lex (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep A notable brokerage company in London having reliable references.Kalekar M (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC) SOCK. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA who has made very few edit to Wikipedia, 17 in fact. scope_creep^Talk 09:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a google news search and there are more news about this company and some passing mentions. Specifically, they have CNBC mention, Reuters, and Market Watch mention, Another source here is in depth coverage. There are a few more such as poundsterlinglive.com, themarketherarld, etc. Most are not in depth but just being in the news with lot's of passing mentions are also good to show notability, specifically these are Analyst quotations, so it shows that the company is trusted by peers and media. Peter303x (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:SPA. These are passing mentions and are the poorest sources I've ever seen. scope_creep^Talk 08:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has a history of posting defending comments and discrediting editors that vote against his nominations. Some of his SPA accusations look legit, but please check my edit history. I have been editor since 2013 and started doing AFD votes in 2018. In another thread he accused me that I am SPA because I only do AFD votes. This is not true. I have done edits to hundreds of pages and subjects. As far as this particular page, I agree that some sources are passing mention, but one of the sources I provided was a in depth coverage and there are other in debt coverage as well. Just place your vote and move on. No point accusing others that go against you and violating WP:HAR.Peter303x (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter303x: In his defense, I always raise an eyebrow too when voters on AfD don't have a user page or have a talk page with two entries. It seems very suspicious. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 05:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guto (footballer, born 1991)[edit]

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

Article about footballer who has only played semi-professionally except for 3 second-half substitute's appearances in the Campeonato Mineiro. There is no online Portuguese-language coverage of this footballer other than database entries, match reports and transfer announcements (and nothing at all which would be in-depth coverage). Although having played in a few minutes in a fully-pro league match creates a presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL, there is a long-standing consensus that when an article comprehensively fails WP:GNG as this does, the presumption isn't valid. Jogurney (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when there is a complete lack of coverage, failing GNG. Giant Snowman 11:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better to have a complete set of articles here for WP:NFOOTBALL than maintain a complete set on another site and a separate incomplete set here. Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article, there's no reason to say they shouldn't be as a reason to keep an article. Peter James (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely and utterly fails WP:GNG; NFOOTBALL is a useful guideline designed to help us decide whether an article is likely to pass GNG. In these sorts of cases where the footballer clearly fails GNG, the borderline passing of NFOOTBALL is irrelevant. It very clearly says at the top of WP:NSPORTS that the SNG are only there as a guide on whether something passes GNG or not and that meeting the SNG does not mean that the article has to be kept. Spiderone 19:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the arguments for that are valid, and the arguments for keep are invalid. Geschichte (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nemelka[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:NBIO- notability is not inherited from currently being one of the Deputy trade representatives. 1292simon (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Did you check Office of the United States Trade Representative? If you look at the infobox, you'll see that all of the agency executives, including deputies, have their own articles. Would you make the same argument for the other executives, or is there something unique about this article that supports deletion? Edge3 (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Edge3: I'm neutral on this one. Please note that I didn't start this AfD. Spiderone 10:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Oh my gosh! So sorry... I was really tired last night and meant to ping the nominator. @1292simon: Same question applies to you! Thanks, Edge3 (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edge3. I haven't looked at the articles, but since ambassadors are not considered inherently notable, then I believe a deputy trade rep would also need other significant events to pass WP:NBIO. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going to take a look at the other ones to see if they warrant deletion. For this article, I agree that we should delete. Edge3 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a high enough level appointment to lead to default notability and the sourcing does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this article seems a little thinner than a couple of the others on Deputy US Trade Representatives, I would like to keep this piece, since we have a set of articles on these Deputy US Trade Representatives. There are only 3 deputies under Robert Lighthizer, unlike Assistant Trade Representatives, which number around 20.--Concertmusic (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only secondary source in the article is about the confirmation to the position of a deputy trade representative for the USA. Merely holding that position does not automatically make him notable. Conclusion: not notable. PJvanMill)talk( 13:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn, as promised if sources were supplied. Thanks! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lieyi Zhuan[edit]

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

I was totally unable to find a source that even trivially mentions this, let alone verifies any of the statements made within. Zh.wiki has no article about it, and searching "列異傳" there turns up nothing. The Cao Pi article doesn't mention it in either language. A Google search on Books and Scholar doesn't turn up anything. Would be happy to withdraw if anyone finds anything that can verify this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added a reference to a web page which discusses this work, the question of attribution and later republications, and also carries a list of potential sources. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a real enough text. Here's a useful entry: [61] Haukur (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Lewis[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (I meant to delete, not relist) Missvain (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Katz[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as the sources are “substantial coverage”, viz. articles about Katz and not brief mentions. Article does need better referencing. Moonraker (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not such that the article can pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails to meet WP:GNG. No news hits under "Mo Katz" or "Timothy Katz". He gets mentioned in a few lists and WP:ROUTINE transaction reports, and they are mostly of the WP:PRIMARY or non-WP:RS variety. Yosemiter (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG pretty easily, sources aren't independent/reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 13:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only trivial/routine coverage available Spiderone 16:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nickelodeon shows and movies on CBS All Access[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Iaschelcic[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mos'aab Al Kandari[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He was the starting goalkeeper for Al Kuwait in the 2009 AFC Cup Final, the 2012 AFC Cup Final, and the 2013 AFC Cup Final, which Al-Kuwait all won, and there should be articles covering him significantly as a result. Typing his name in Arabic brings up a number of sources, but I can't figure out if they're significant. SportingFlyer T·C 15:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 12:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - He does get some decent coverage in a quick search of his Arabic name [62] [63] [64] [65] but falls short on WP:GNG Spiderone 21:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Mock, California[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quidster4040 Perhaps you should have looked at the location on the map [66] before voting: This is not a populated place. The WP:GNIS is not a reliable source for determining a place is actually a community, nor does it establish notability. You can see on the topo map from which the GNIS took its data that Mock is the name for a railroad spur, not a community. A negligent user mass-created thousands of articles from the GNIS without bothering to see if the junk he was spewing was actually accurate. Reywas92^Talk 19:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nexhmedin Spahiu[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the significant coverage guidelines under WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It does not pass wp:N threshold for certain.07:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep: Was any effort made at WP:BEFORE? If I hit the Google Scholar link above, I get 55 hits, with the first ten being citation references to Spahiu's books - and each of those citation links has several sub-links to the works where he is cited fairly extensively. I don't think the GNG reason for deletion holds water at all. If I need to provide specific examples, please let me know.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Khirurg (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough support to meet the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC.Kolma8 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG, clearly doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR, nor do they pass WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unnecessary to have a disambig page at this point, even if the second article survives AfD. RL0919 (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facing Future (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The organization is a redlink, and I can't find any mentions of it in other articles, so it fails WP:DABMENTION. We don't need this dab page. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with the original article - The creator has now created an article for the mentioned redlink, but the subject itself is likely non-notable. —{Canuck lehead} 03:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I rved the move of the album. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facing Future (Organization) is open. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jeff Anderson (attorney). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Anderson and Associates[edit]

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

Created by an undisclosed paid editor (see [67]), this organization doesn't appear to be notable. There are news stories mentioning them, but it's in relation to the work they do. E.g. "Jeff Anderson and Associates" filed a brief (and that's the only mention of them). Such articles would be considered trivial coverage. One article that mentions "jeff anderson" significantly ([68]), is talking about the person, not the law firm. Also as it stands, the article is very promotional, would probably have to be reduced to a stub if kept. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~with Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases~~ with Jeff Anderson (attorney). ♟♙ (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable law firm. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jeff Anderson (attorney), since his firm has primarily represented victims in Catholic Church sexual abuse cases; the firm doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. Interesting that this article is nominated for deletion, and Anderson's article is tagged {{Undisclosed paid}} with no explanation on its talk page or in its history. Whitewashing by the BSA and/or the Catholic Church in the United States? Miniapolis 01:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Miniapolis, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jeffrey_Zients, the creator has some WP:UPE questions that need answers. Ravensfire (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Miniapolis, I'd say likely pay by the attorney/law firm, given the edit history of the suspect editor (user:Cactus78910). The story is that the editor has been tagged in [news stories https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/03/wikipedia-page-bidens-new-covid-czar-scrubbed-442735] for separate editing of articles, and going through their edit history, this article seemed suspect. It seems to only be isolated to Jeff Anderson and his law firm though, not the entire church. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both noted, and thanks for the clarifications. FWIW, though, according to WP:RSP Politico is "is considered generally reliable for American politics"; it may not be slam-dunk reliable for this topic. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 02:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any useful content to Jeff Anderson (attorney). Reliable sourcing used in the article only includes trivial mentions. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 05:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the comments both above and below in support of merging rather than deleting. Cbl62 (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jeff Anderson (attorney): As others have noted, the focus from sources is on Anderson the person, not as much the law firm. Anything useful should be merged there. Ravensfire (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per above. Jonathunder (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge merge and redirect as others suggested. Peter303x (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "How the honours system works". UKGov. Retrieved 28 November 2020.
^ "Woman's Hour Power List 2020: The List". BBC Radio4. Retrieved 16 November 2020.

[1] "How the honours system works". UKGov. Retrieved 28 November 2020.

[WomansHour_2020PowerList-2] "Woman's Hour Power List 2020: The List". BBC Radio4. Retrieved 16 November 2020.

[1]

[2]