Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 21	October 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Koschany[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:BASIC – no substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources found. Not sure whether subject's Gordon Sinclair Award is enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO though. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I do not see any significant coverage, and have never heard of this person.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep I'm Canadian and I've never heard of him. Unless we can find better sources or more significant coverage, I'd support deletion. Seems like he's done SOME important news reporting/work but the article isn't fleshed out enough to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. Most producers are run of the mill, as is this person. There is far from significant coverage about him, rather than his TV shows or reports. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 23 October 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. Cabayi (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Database Deployment Manager[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Yet another boutique open source software project. Note: Appears to be unrelated to the print on demand book Database Deployment Manager Second Edition by Gerardus Blokdyk. Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourceforge and launchpad are the primary sources for article information, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it reads like a technical manual Devokewater (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted* there are more than 5000 downloads on its distribution page from sourceforge (https://sourceforge.net/projects/dbm-project/files/release_01k/stats/timeline?dates=2010-01-01%20to%202020-10-01&period=monthly), and the source is freely available at (https://github.com/fritzone/ddm) and considering this is a very niche product (it is not a database browsing app, nor a simple query runner, but it specifically helps you to easily create databases, nothing similar is on the market) there are also users using it, but since it is not backed by large corporations throwing boatloads of money at it the application is gaining momentum only in circles that specifically wish to create databases. User:Frehone —Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 29 October 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. The one delete argument doesn't really make sense to me. This nomination was not about martial arts, and if he's "well known in the skateboarding world" then he is notable. Geschichte (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Mumford[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Less notable sources used, seems to be an important element of Australian skater culture, but not enough proven to warrant an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Matt has been on the front cover of a magazine and is well known in the skateboarding world but there are hundreds of martial artists that have been on the front cover of martial arts magazines that are well known in their fighting style who are not notable. Without any national news articles on Matt notability can’t be established. Australianblackbelt (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in Thrasher and Transworld magazine. In addition to ESPN/ X-Games coverage. --Wil540 art (talk) 01:14, 25 October 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. Cabayi (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mobil Directo[edit]

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

Article about two models of civil defense air raid sirens. Appears to be entirely WP:OR. There is no article for the manufacturer. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT, the article is unsourced and BEFORE showed no WP:RS that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. Since there is no manufacturer article, there is no appropriate redirect target and the content is unsourced so it is inappropriate to merge. // Timothy :: talk 21:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article, no categories, appears to only be a rambling series of technical details. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I suggest a more thorough WP:BEFORE. There is a manufacturer article, American Signal Corporation, and there is an article on this product, ACA Allertor 125. Both of these currently lack sufficient sources, but these exist e.g.: [1] (p167), [2] (p206), [3], [4], [5] etc.. ----Pontificalibus 13:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SIGCOV. There were a few passing mentions in 1960s Mechanical Engineering-type magazines, but zero coverage in text books or newspapers. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a technical manual --Devokewater (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find it mentioned here and there, but no substantial discussion of it. Currently fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:53, 29 October 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. Cabayi (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia K. Williams[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE, WP:NPOL, and WP:BASIC. The CEO of a non-notable health company and a government health advisor at a level that doesn't appear high enough for WP:NPOL. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Her position as a mid- or low-level government advisor does not satisfy WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 19:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems relatively unimportant. Agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:SIGCOV. Her work seems to be important, and she has over 5,000 followers on Twitter @claudiawilliams, but there's been no coverage in secondary sources about her. Ping me if you find better sources. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has plenty of mentions and seems to have some importance but I can't find a single substantial treatment of her in a reliable source. Currently fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:08, 29 October 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. Cabayi (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sahagin[edit]

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

De-PRODed in 2009. Article about a supposed mythological creature in eastern European legend. The only references to it that I can find are from Dungeons & Dragons and Final Fantasy fan sites, and one mention in an adaptation of Beowulf. I would love to find a source about the original folklore, but I see nothing. As it stands, this does not pass WP:GNG. Mbdfar (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage in reliable sources Spiderone 20:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If someone wanted to create a Redirect to an appropriate D&D or FF related article after deletion, that would probably be fine. But as it stands, this article is complete WP:OR, and should absolutely not be retained as a result. I am finding no evidence that this word was ever used in mythology or as an alternate word for a type of hag, which again, appears to be original research. Rorshacma (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was actually deleted via PROD in 2009, then restored by KrakatoaKatie about a month ago after a request on her talk page. There has clearly been zero attempt at improvement since then, and no indication of any real-world sourcing. (And to be pedantic, it's actually wrong - "sahagin" has never been a D&D monster. In D&D, it's always been spelled Sahuagin, and that is a redirect to a list, which should tell you all you need to know about the real-world notability of this monster.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources listed, if it's a folklore-themed article, ref links to any peer-reviewed journal of folklore could establish notability. As is, non-existant sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like so many other articles created in 2004 this one lacks sources. We cannot have unsourced articles, it violates the principles of verrifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A character with no real world notability. VocalIndia (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 10:45, 27 October 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) 10:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eugeniu Plohotniuc[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the information of this WP:BLP that is actually a curriculum vitae. Language is obviously a barrier but I did include the Плохотнюк Євген Пилипович Russian spelling in my search without any success. The included external link does not provide anything about the subject. The Romanian, Russian, and Ukranian Wiki pages on the subject are in similarly poor shape. J04n(talk page) 18:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 18:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 18:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not LinkedIn and there's nothing here to suggest notability as required by WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Tiny cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete - there's no allegation of notability. Even of that was fixed, which I don't think it can be fixed, he clearly fails due to WP:PROF and WP:SIGCOV. His works have been cited exactly 59 times, total. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, this is a CV --Devokewater (talk) 10:46, 27 October 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Matter (company)[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced; the company is likely unnotable and fails WP:NCORP / WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE shows practically no sourcable information in reliable sources. IceWelder [✉] 19:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 19:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 19:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As a video game developer (not publisher), with a fair number of notable games that they created, it is not unreasonable to have a page about them that can be used to link back from the respect game pages. This is not saying this makes the company notable and there should be more effort to expand. Due to its age, this likely means print sources. For example, I found CBC briefly talking to Chris Gray about it in 2010. I can't see the full article, but there's a detailed article on the closure in Canadian Business in 1997 per Google Books. --Masem (t) 17:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I get your point, though the article seems to fail GNG/NCORP in general, with or without being a developer. I amended the History section using the source you provided and the one that already existed. I cannot find sources for most of the games listed. It seems like most sources (including the one from CBC) are focused on Chris Gray himself, rather than one of his companies. We consider creating an article for him instead of keeping this one. IceWelder [✉] 21:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that NCORP says "no" but at the same time, WP:NCREATIVE #4 (yes, I know that's for BIOs) would imply its possible. I would love to link where I've seen my argument used as keep for AFD (a company that is the creative force behind a number of disparate blue-linked notable works should have a landing page even if the company is not really itself notable for purposes of navigation purposes) but it's been a while. Hence why I add I think there's more likely sourcing and provided a couple that I know do exist but simply don't have full access to. While one is focused on Gray, they are clearly asking about this company too, it would be like omitting articles talking to Sid Meier on an article about Firaxis. --Masem (t) 23:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an issue that needs to be dealt with in the guidelines. There have been some recent AfD's for companies closely associated with a "creative" who probably meets notability requirements. NCORP has no guidelines for this issue and could probably use some. Until that happens though, the only real recommendation is to create an article on the create "notable" and redirect to there. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there is a case for the "creative" behind this company to have their own article, since this article is about a company, the appropriate SNG is WP:NCORP. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree that WP:AUTHOR should apply to developers of creative works, even if they're a corporate entity. If anything, it's just useful for navigation purposes between game infoboxes. I made a similar point at the InnerSloth DRV. This isn't just some company churning out stamped metal on a production line. - hahnch e n 15:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 18:12, 22 October 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 Cymbal. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hand cymbal[edit]

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

Firstly, this is a disambiguation page disguised as an article. Secondly, hand cymbals strictly refer to orchestral crash cymbals as the entire etymology of "hand" cymbals arose as a way to distinguish it from suspended cymbals. The "article" is wrong and unnecessary. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is certainly a deletable sub-stub as it stands owing to the lack of any references at all but I am hoping to save it. I get almost 25 million ghits on hand cymbal and the first few pages all appear relevant, and while there are only two incoming wikilinks from articles, at worst a redirect would seem more appropriate to me. The nomination makes two points but neither appear valid reasons for deletion to me... there is no attempt to disguise this as anything, it was always intended as a stub, and while some organologists would support the personal opinion that it is wrong these would be ones focussed on Western style orchestration. The other meaning of hand cymbal is well established too in my experience... but possibly more in world music. Andrewa (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: If you can find any sources that call a suspended cymbal a "hand cymbal", your claim would have some merit. However, nearly every text I have found refers to clash cymbals as hand cymbals. There aren't that many non-western cultures that use suspended cymbals (if you know of any let me know). They remain fairly rooted in western orchestras meaning that western organology still makes the most sense for them (every maker of cymbals is Western too). Also maybe this analogy helps you see my point, but timpani are played with mallets yet they are not a "mallet instrument". Just because you change implements (e.g. striking sus. cymbals with your hand) does not mean the instrument is classified as something else. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Also the definition of a hand cymbal is "two cymbals held in either hand, one striking the other", meaning sus. cymbals do not qualify. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are more types of hand cymbal. See The ‘Bock-A-Da-Bock’ or Hand Cymbal, for example. The article is clearly just a start and so our editing policy applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment You bring up a fairly good point but I still believe that the page would work better as a disambiguation page. I feel like "hand cymbal" is just a definition (WP:NOT#DICDEF), for example, "Hand cymbals are two cymbals held in either hand, one striking the other". There are several instruments sometimes referred to as hand cymbals such as the Tingsha, Finger Cymbal, Taal, and the Bock-a-da-bock but all relevant information is located on their pages. Perhaps create a disambiguation page with the definition at the top followed by the corresponding articles. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cymbal. The disambiguation can be performed there in context, not as this unnecessary definition article. May also redirect to Clash cymbals as the primary meaning for this term. Reywas92^Talk 07:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cymbal per Reywas. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I must admit I'm having trouble finding sources! When I bought the lovely 11" Paiste Traditionals thin splash I still own it was described on their web page as "suitable for use as a hand cymbal" (that may not be word perfect but "hand cymbal" is) but that model and page have been deleted (but some 602s and even Sound Creations are back! Yay!). "Hand cymbal" there certainly meant, played by hand as a suspended cymbal, it was standard terminology and that particular cymbal would be far too fragile to use in a pair. Times change, and cymbal sales literature is notoriously rubbish. My father, a metallurgist, used to read my cymbal catalogs and laugh out loud at the claims made. And now all online discussion of percussion has an above-average rubbish content too, I watch the drum kit article from time to time and there's a steady stream of mainly well-intentioned but often quite ridiculous stuff confidently added to it. Maybe we should have an article on drummer jokes as they obviously do have a basis! Anyway, well done on finding one source, and interested to see where this goes, obviously. But take some of what is said above with a grain of salt. Andrewa (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Marini[edit]

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

I have found no significant coverage. A passing mention here and an AllMusic profile are not enough to secure an article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Less Unless (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a very difficult area for a subject to meet our notability requirements, but I’m not really finding anything substantial. Mccapra (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vmavanti (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: while there are (unsourced) claims that he has worked with a lot of musicians, notability is not inherited. There's nothing in the article to demonstrate the level of notability required by WP:NMUSICIAN, and I've been unable to find any further sources which would rectify this. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no luck with decent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems non-important. Has he won a Grammy for example, which he hasn't. A long career alone isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk)
Delete. A passing mention in a book and an AllMusic listing are not WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 23 October 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) 16:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meenakshi Raveendran[edit]

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

I have heavily edited the article to remove the promotional content and make it worthy but found she hasn't done anything significant to pass WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NACTOR per se. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t see anything solid by way of sourcing. Mccapra (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:31, 29 October 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) 16:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shabnam Sayed[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Lack of reliable significant resources. Fails WP:GNG CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing to show multiple significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR Ravensfire (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not having significant roles on multiple projects to pass WP:NACTOR - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the nomination is by a blocked sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Spiderone 20:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The subject is pretty non notable despite nomination from a blocked sock. I am surprised it was accepted at NPP and survived for nearly 7 years here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roller26 (talk • contribs)
Delete There is nothing substantial in the article and I couldn't find either doing a google search. Fails the relevant SNG criteria. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 20:45, 26 October 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) 16:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya[edit]

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

Non notable film maker. references do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the nomination is by a blocked sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there is no assertion of notability (A7), and it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Globg 15:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globg (talk • contribs)
Comment the nominator has been blocked on 20 October 2020 by User:GeneralNotabilitywith an expiration time of indefinite for Undisclosed paid editing in violation of the WMF Terms of Use. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daaask/Archive. Vexations (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:BIO. Expertwikiguy (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:01, 29 October 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skruf Snus[edit]

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

Article seems to have been created for promotional purposes. It's poorly sourced and notability has not been properly demonstrated. Oqwert (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Oqwert (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Oqwert (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Oqwert (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, snus as a product is illegal in most European countries, but where it exists, i.e. Norway and Sweden, Skruf and General are the Marlboro and Prince of this market. Regardless of the creation situation, the article is nowhere near promotional in tone, and sourcing is in this case a matter of cleanup not deletion. Geschichte (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has a Swedish wikipedia page; Skruf Snus --Devokewater (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glenwood United Methodist Church (Columbus, Ohio)[edit]

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

Looks to fail WP:NCHURCH and WP:GNG, notability tagged since 2010. Also has no sources. This is just a database entry, not really significant coverage. I can find several database entries similar to the one above, but those still aren't significant coverage. Coverage from the church itself and the Methodist branch it is affiliated with aren't exactly independent coverage. As usual, there are many mentions in obituaries and local news, but these are only namedrops. The pastor was involved in a Methodist controversy awhile back over his sexual orientation, but while the coverage mentions the church, it doesn't provide significant coverage of it. Aside from a few passing mentions, such as VBS announcements, there's not much coverage coming this church's way. While the history of the church goes back to 1893, that's not notability-bearing, nor honestly that unusual. (the Baptist church I attend was founded several decades before 1893) Hog Farm _Bacon 03:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable. --Bduke (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would expect to see an architectural history of the building, such as it being listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Nothing provided to establish notability; that being said, I would expect a congregation formed in the 1890's would have some newspaper coverage at some point. As it stands, nothing to show why it's notable. Oaktree b (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Gade[edit]

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

He is a political candidate who has not received an abnormally large amount of national media coverage for a senate candidate necessary to meet the notability standards for a candidate, he doesn't meet the, " Will people want to know about him in 10 years? " standard, and he doesn't appear to meet any other notability standards. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My preference is to redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Virginia as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for U.S. Senate. My hesitation in placing a bolded position is that we are now less than three weeks to the election. At this point, there is value in holding off on closing the discussion until we know if the subject will be notable based upon the results. --Enos733 (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Virginia. He's a candidate and this page helps his campaign. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates are not default notable. If he is elected we will create an article, not before then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he was appointed to the National Council on Disability, worked as a political appointee in the Bush and Trump administrations, and his academic work was been highlighted in the New York Times. He has also led a philanthropic project sponsored by Philanthropy Roundtable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.249.12 (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those things are "inherent" notability claims that guarantee the right to a Wikipedia article — especially if they have to be referenced to those organizations' own self-published websites about themselves because media coverage about his work in those roles is nonexistent. No matter what notability claim you want to make for a person, what turns it into grounds for an article is not the thing you say, it is the amount of media coverage he did or didn't get for doing the thing you say. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Virginia. There's a 2015 New York Times piece in the article that is not associated with his campaign for office that gives some information about him. This piece from the George W. Bush Center discusses him, although since he was involved in the Bush administration, I can see the independence of that source being challenged. Press release from his NCD work doesn't count towards notability. Little bit of coverage here (from 2017). There's some pre-campaign coverage about him, but it's too limited to make a WP:GNG push here. If he beats Warner, then the redirect can be removed. For now, there's just not quite enough non-campaign related coverage to get across the bar of GNG here. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe Gade would be notable even if he was not the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Virginia. Among other reasons, he has taken a bold, unpopular, but well-articulated stand on veterans disability policy - see the article in the New York Times,^[1] and Gade's article in National Affairs.^[2] Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 16:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Markworthen: - I also think it's close, but I'm not quite convinced it's quite there. The NYT piece is good, but the other one is written by him, so it can't go towards GNG. Between the NYT piece, the George W. Bush center piece I linked in my comment, if we can find another one from before the election, I think a case of notability can be made. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Wikipedia is not the place to catalogue individuals who lose elections, as Gade likely will. Without his candidacy, he has an excellent resume but not notability under our precedents. Reywas92^Talk 23:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Philipps, Dave (7 January 2015). "Iraq Veteran, Now a West Point Professor, Seeks to Rein In Disability Pay". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 15 October 2020.
^ Gade, Daniel (Summer 2013). "A Better Way to Help Veterans" (PDF). National Affairs. 16: 53–69.

Redirect, obviously without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — and the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a free GNG-based exemption from NPOL, because every candidate always gets some campaign coverage. To be notable without having to hold office first, a candidate must either (a) properly demonstrate preexisting notability that would already have gotten him an article anyway, or (b) properly demonstrate a reason why his candidacy is much, much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. But the claims of preexisting notability being made above are not "inherently" notable enough to confer instant notability freebies in the absence of GNG-worthy media coverage about that work, and there's nothing here that would suggest his candidacy is unusually important. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on service in Republican administrations and National Council on Disability membership. Passes WP:SIGCOV. KidAd talk 18:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning, but the national council on disability membership doesn't justify notability in my opinion, since no current members as far as I know have pages. Also, serving at a relatively low level in an administration should not be enough to justify an article. Finally, I think Gade is close to meeting SIGCOV but I think he falls short of having enough coverage to meet SIGCOV . Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could've provided more detail in my vote, and do not thing that Gade's (former) National Council on Disability membership is integral to his notability. In this case, the subject nearly meets a few notability standards, (WP:SIGCOV, WP:NPOL, WP:NACADEMIC) but doesn't quite "get there" for each of them. That is why my vote was weak keep, as I evaluated his notability cumulatively. KidAd talk 01:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Virginia. If he wins page can be recreated. Mztourist (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Between the coverage of him before his senate race that Hog Farm points out, and the coverage of him during his current Senate campaign, there is enough to meet WP:GNG in my view. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the election page. Clearly not notable on his own, as most sources are passing mentions only or based on the campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as I don't think he'd be notable except for the fact he's an unelected candidate. We can always restore it if he wins, regardless of when this discussion closes. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Muboshgu and SportingFlyer. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only is he a USA Senate candidate - and all candidates for USA senate should be recorded on wikipedia in perpetuity - but also he was one of the many Trump nominees who was stonewalled by never receiving attention to his nomination. There should be a category for those people, many of whom gave up because they needed to support their families. Kissedsmiley (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree as he's been on the disability board appointed by a presidential administration, and with the coverage of him during his current Senate campaign, there is enough to meet the criteria in my opinion.

Hbass881 —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep Well over the GNG bar and there is no relevant policy or guideline that prohibits and article. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A discussion at WP:AN is both relevant and mentions this AfD. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not as obvious a GNG pass as Theresa Greenfield or John James. He had a short article even before there was anything about Senate candidacy, which is a definite point in favor, though I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it would've survived AfD then. --BDD (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the decision to recreate the Greenfield page, which seems relevant here, I'm in favor of keeping this article up until election day, but if Gade loses, we should reopen this discussion of possible deletion. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This violates WP:CRYSTAL. Once you're notable, you're always notable. If his notability is contingent on winning the election, he's not yet notable. SportingFlyer T·C 10:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have a number of GNG-eligible sources: sources which are independent, reliable, and which provide significant coverage about this subject. These are not passing mentions as other commenters claim. See for example biographical articles from Minot Daily News, Henry County Enterprise, election coverage from AP, The Washington Post, The Virginian-Pilot, The Winchester Star, Government sources 1 2 3, news on his appointment Bloomberg. NPOL is not valid justification to delete, it defers to the GNG on unelected candidates, and this subject passes GNG. Notability is not temporary, says a notability guideline. WP:10YT is an "explanatory supplement", it can't possibly override NTEMP. ST47 (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with just using WP:GNG alone to argue this case is that every candidate will likely pass some sort of WP:GNG standard by virtue of being a candidate. Passing WP:GNG isn't the issue with candidate articles. As we've seen from previous historical elections, people who fail to get elected typically don't have any lasting notability and go back to private life pretty quickly (though often the election will be between two people who are already notable.) I don't see any WP:GNG coverage apart from the campaign, making this a WP:BIO1E, and it was clearly created to support the candidacy which introduces WP:PROMO concerns. We don't even have to lose any of the information on the page if it's merged or redirected and can easily restore it if he wins. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (replying to SportingFlyer just above the relist notice)
I don't agree that WP:GNG "is not the issue" for political candidates. The nomination was based on notability and 10YT. GNG applies to all subjects. Heck, WP:NPOL explicitly tells us to use the GNG to determine notability of unsuccessful political candidates. (It doesn't say to use a special modified version of the GNG in which we ignore sources related to his candidacy.) Many candidates will not pass GNG, particularly minor candidates who receive only passing mentions or routine coverage, but this one does.
When you say lasting notability, what policy are you referring to? WP:LASTING talks about events, and even then, it says that events with lasting importance are notable, it does not say the inverse.
WP:BIO1E is also more nuanced than simply one event => no article, but this individual is not notable for only one event. He is a military veteran who has received some minor decorations, he has published articles in several peer-reviewed journals which have also been discussed in the media, he was appointed to the National Council on Disability and received a presidential nomination to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (To be clear, I do not say that he is not independently notable for each of these things. However, they all contribute to his notability.) The sources and our coverage focus on far more than one event.
I do not agree that this article is excessively promotional, but even if it is, AfD is not cleanup. ST47 (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you actually make a strong argument that WP:BIO1E does apply - if he wasn't notable before this campaign, he's been notable for zero "events." Furthermore, many losing candidates will pass WP:GNG based on their campaign coverage alone, but we've frequently held that does not make them notable. WP:NOTNEWS says: For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Interpret that as you will, but "routine" is consistently applied as "anyone in this person's position would have received coverage," whether it be a punter being released from a football team or a political candidate. It also says: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. This means that once you're notable enough for an article, you're notable. It also means (through many AfDs) that if you don't have enduring notability - if you're just a part of the news cycle, as any candidate is - then the proper thing to do is either delete or redirect to the relevant election. It's also why we've got a mix of keep and delete/redirect - the keep !voters think passing WP:GNG is enough, while those of us wishing to redirect know that if he loses, in five years we'll take a look at this page and go, why the heck does this guy have an article (unless he becomes notable for something else in the interim.) Since he's only notable in the context of the senate election, a redirect/merge is appropriate - and as I've noted before, we don't have to lose any of the information. SportingFlyer T·C 10:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Doing an independent Google search the subject meets Wikipedia Notability Policy (GNG). I don't look at other guidelines, and especially essays, unless GNG is weak which is not the case here. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT can knock off a WP:GNG article, specifically WP:BIO1E. SportingFlyer T·C 10:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO1E is not policy so it's out unless notability is questionable, IMO. WP:NOT is considered a Wikipedia policy, remarkable enough, and if followed by the letter of the law will relegate Wikipedia to the rigid insignificance of that of Britannica. One person/One event is a completely laughable argument when you have an article on Lawnchair Larry --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are going to place no significance on his being awarded the Bronze Star Medal? It may not be as prestigious as other awards but it has become more significant since they stopped handing them out like candy in the 1990's.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a bit of a dodge, but the article is Lawnchair Larry flight rather than Lawnchair Lary. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the BLP shows notability as per WP:GNG and has contributions in multiple fields like Military, Academics, Politics. Promotional lines like - "Bush described cycling with Gade as "unbelievable" given Gade's injury" need to be removed. So, I do have WP:PROMO issues with it. However, I would say it should be kept for the moment. The outcome of future elections should not base the retention of the page.--Camella Gandhi (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested to 2020 United States Senate election in Virginia. Polling, the lack of endorsements or funds, and prognosticators (Cook and Bitecofer agree it's "Safe Dem"), with less than two weeks to go, indicate he's going to lose badly, possibly by more than 20 points. It's probable that not only he will lose, but several people who have endorsed him could also lose. Much of the coverage is obligatory both sides reporting. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am inclined to agree with the notion that major party candidates for US Senate races should have articles in general. While the WP:NPOV policy does not directly apply, I do believe that deleting the non-incumbent major party candidate runs while giving full coverage with a biography of the incumbent runs against the spirit of that policy. When Wikipedia covers elections, there should be fair representation to both sides of the election. The caveat is that coverage is contingent on the core WP:V and WP:NOR policies being met, and there needs to be enough sourcing (WP:GNG) for a full article. In this case, there is a wide amount of media articles, so I don't see that as an issue here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have long thought that merely being a major party candidate in a major US Senate race was not enough for notability, but per the WP:AN result on Theresa Greenfield and the WP:AFD results on John James and Marquita Bradshaw, there clearly is a community consensus that all such individuals are inherently notable. Additionally, Gade already had press coverage and an article for years before he became a US Senate candidate. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, including career before he ran for the Senate. There is no reason why we must preclude congressional candidates from having articles, or setting an abnormally high bar. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the apparent change in community consensus that the major party candidate for a seat in the US senate is sufficient notability to be presumed appropriate for an article. (I've been urging it for many years now, and I'm glad to see the progress). DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 31 October 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. Tone 20:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Wood Jr.[edit]

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

Losing congressional candidate, "national ambassador" for a NPO, no other possible notability DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 04:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates for public office are not notable for that, and he has no other way to actual establish a claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a case for keeping the article. John's primary notability is not as a former congressional candidate (would it help if I changed the infobox template type?), but as a commentator on America's political climate, particularly race relations. He is well-recognized in the circles of the intellectual dark web (IDW) and is of the same status of other commentators like Coleman Hughes, Glenn Loury, Bret Weinstein, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Kmele Foster, Chloé Valdary, and John McWhorter (example here). Shelby Corbett (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there were any evidence-based indication that he is indeed an IDW notable, I would reconsider, but I can't see any such. Not a WP:NPOL pass either, per above. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 10:47, 28 October 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(−1)F[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to need an article to explain, could be placed in another article, and serve the same function. BJackJS talk 17:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and open a merge proposal There seems to be no cause for a deletion discussion here - what you need is expert input from people who know the area, as to whether this should be merged into an existing article; open a standard merge proposal first (or perform the merge yourself and see if it sticks). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, procedural keep, that is. I agree with the nom and Elmidae that this could be usefully merged, but AfD is not for cleanup and in particular it is not the place to discuss merges. Better would be to open a merge discussion on the talk page. See WP:MERGE for instructions on how to do so. One promising merge target would be Supersymmetry as a quantum group, in which there is a lot of overlap with this article. Another target would be the section Parity_(physics)#Fixing_the_global_symmetries. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not needing its own article is not a reason to request deletion, that is a reason to open a merge discussion. If, on the other hand, you wish to argue it is not notable, please say so. A merger discussion seems appropriate in this case, but there is not a clear target, so that will need to be discussed elsewhere. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:27, 24 October 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. Tone 20:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Group OJSC[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Only working ref that isn't an own web-site is of the President opening a bicycle factory - and that is reported in the country's own press which is far from independent. Searches for reliable sources for Azerbijan topics is difficult and I located nothing that might count as an RS. As it stands it fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this company appears to be a sovereign wealth fund for Azerbaijan --Devokewater (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 29 October 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 20:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Williams (Grambling State basketball)[edit]

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

Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH. Was deprodded due to his winning his league's player of the year award, but that's not one of the qualifications of NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sure he meets WP:NCOLLATH. Number 1: “ Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major NCAA Division I record.” The equivalent of the College FB award template is Template:Men's college basketball award navbox. Both templates show conference POY awards. Rikster2 (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find more significant coverage online and worry this might never be more than a stub per guideline WP:WHYN. However, an WP:IAR argument could be made to complete this otherwise ~99% completed list of Southwestern Athletic Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year winners and allow the article to exist.—Bagumba (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at contemporary articles on Newspapers.com? I’d do it but my subscription lapsed a couple weeks ago and I am awaiting renewal. Rikster2 (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did. Nothing significant, though sometimes you need to be creative to get stuff out of their search engine. I did a semi-quick pass.—Bagumba (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Conference POYs are generally presumed to be notable, so the only reason to delete would be if there was like no coverage. I saw a decent amount on Newspapers.com, although granted it isn't especially substantial. Still, this could be a solid stub, so I don't see a reason to delete. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NCOLLATH. Also per IAR that Bagumba mentioned, specifically because Williams would be the only player without a page on the SWAC POY list-article. That said, I'll continue to look into newspapers.com to help beef up refs if possible. I'm also going to see if I can track a DOB (maybe DOD), which would help in the refs search. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For college basketball, winning a conference player of the year award is usually considered enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH #1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:43, 26 October 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. Tone 20:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Nonoi[edit]

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

Yet another in a series of tragic stories, but no lasting effects, delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over this article again--there's too much detail, obviously, and it's not surprise that there's a lot of newspaper articles that help detail the crime and the trial, but the big thing in terms of notability should be whether it had any lasting effect, on legislation for instance--I see no evidence of that. So unfortunately, I have to go with delete, per nom (so to speak), expressing my regrets to the creator. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While this article is well-developed, I agree with the application of WP:NOTNEWS. It also does not appear that this event has garnered much attention outside of Singapore. I don't think this will pass the WP:10YT. KidAd talk 17:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So do the cases in USA, User:KidAd. There are some crimes and murders in USA that occurred and gained public attention but with less to none from the countries outside USA; some were unheard of overseas. I do not agree with you when you say this similar reason as the reason for deletion, because it would mean that those US murder cases that did not make big news outside USA are supposed to be deleted as well if this is what you want to put it.NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 03.41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep This story made the headlines back in 2006. Was a story about a young child who was murdered by a drug addict. Just look at the many crime articles created about Singapore. Don't think that fits the criteria for deletion as it was a really notable crime case. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The story was considered as one of the notable crimes Singapore has witnessed since its independence, and it made headlines back then in 2006 and the subsequent years (the Straits times newspaper also acknowledges it in their 2015 book Guilty as Charged: 25 Crimes that Have Shaken Singapore Since 1965, even 9 years after the crime was committed.). The other later cases involving child abuse resulting in death had cited the Nonoi case among the cases they referred to, which showed that there are still people in Singapore remembering the case due to its notablity and seriousness and comparability to these abuse cases. As what it is cited in the article, people still mention it in 2020 when discussing Singapore's notable crimes in Reddit. So I would argue that it would not fit the criteria for deletion NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 03.41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep per WP:SIGCOV - the article certainly needs editing, but from what I can see is a notable crime, reported over several months, and the subject of a book almost a decade later. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP keeps articles about high-profile persons and cases, irrespective of how generic or common they were and how lasting were their consequences. Nonetheless, as per WP:SIGCOV, this particular case received widespread coverage and attention. I'd argue it can be used by readers to better understand the reasons for capital punishment and Singaporean judicial and penal systems, should they want to learn more about these. Revanchist317 (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Still getting covered in news 14 years later. Has definitely had a lasting impact. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:20, 29 October 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. Tone 20:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mission House (band)[edit]

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

Christian music duo. Coverage is limited to copies of their PR, and not much of it. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this band falls far short of the criteria set out at WP:NBAND. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They have some coverage in the genre press ([6], [7], [8]), but as the nominator said, these are probably friendly repeats of press releases. Otherwise the group can only be found at the usual streaming and social media sites. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per doomsdayer520. I wasn't sure about how much source coverage they have, but on further investigation I think I've pretty much concluded the same. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale provided by the trio of doomsdayer520, GhostDestroyer100 & Dom Kaos. Significant coverage in reliable sources are required if WP:NBAND is to be satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 05:40, 25 October 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camden County High School (Georgia)[edit]

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

Page includes barely any references; barely edited, no future plans to verify any of this. Vivianne Dawn (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vivianne Dawn (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's dubious that there aren't enough sources available to construct an article on any US high school. I find it hard to believe there was any BEFORE done. The article is awful, but the subject is definitely notable. Vivianne Dawn, you do realize AFD is about the subject, not the article? This article needs improvement, not deletion. This is a good canidate for speedy keep. 174.254.192.32 (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, a notable professional sports league team plays their home games there. I can't remember the guideline, but it seems to me that's a geographic notability pass. 174.254.193.245 (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick WP:BEFORE search on Google News showed significant coverage; the nominator also hasn't provided a valid reason for deletion Spiderone 16:44, 27 October 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. Tone 20:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Underneath Acoustic Live (Hanson concert)[edit]

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

Non-notable live concert DVD, tagged as such since 2010. The AllMusic entry is just a track listing, the references in the article are IMDB (unreliable) and primary sources. Can't really find anything better, just bringing up sales sites, blogs, and user-generated databases. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that the article's title doesn't follow WP naming conventions, and it should simply be Underneath Acoustic Live. Fix that if the article is kept. But my recommendation is to delete, because the DVD looks like a quickie release that got no substantial promotion or reliable media notice, and today it is only visible at the usual retail sites. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:36, 23 October 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. Tone 20:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Ioannou[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Article subject requests deletion. OTRS Ticket No. 2020102110017494. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, these reviews certainly indicate a WP:NAUTHOR pass. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is a permission, not a requirement, to delete in cases where the article's subject requests deletion. This is a tough one. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Canadian poet, could use a few improved biographical citations for the article. Oaktree b (talk)
Keep I've added a couple more citations and more detail. Publication in many regional, national, and international literary periodicals and anthologies seem to indicate this is a notable Canadian poet. Feel-flourish (talk) 01:07, 24 October 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. Tone 20:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Tree Forum[edit]

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

nothird party sources. The "archived copy" that doesn;t say what its an archived copy of, turns out to be an archived copy of their web site. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy suggestion, this is an active and respected organisation, the article just needs some effort put into sources. I'll add a couple. Stub Mandrel (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as is I don't see how this even remotely meets notability. --Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 21:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one editor has commented since Stub Mandrel added new refs - would be good to see some more discussion on the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GirthSummit _(blether) 15:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all sources are primary. (Also in a web search.) Geschichte (talk) 21:02, 24 October 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) 16:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esperance Star[edit]

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

Non notable boat. No WP:SIGCOV found. Article appears to have been created by the boat's skipper. schetm (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - see a 2009 AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Trevor Jackson schetm (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I've done a reasonably thorough search via the web and Australasian newspaper databases and found very little on the subject, but have substantially edited the article in an attempt to save it if possible but it is clearly very sparse. I don't think there's currently enough WP:IRSs to sustain it. Cabrils (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been through an AfD before (result was no consensus), so I don't think a soft delete is appropriate; relisting to see if anyone else wants to review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GirthSummit _(blether) 15:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks RS with SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 17:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is way too brief, no sign of anyone expanding the content. Teraplane (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, neither of these objections are reasons for deletion--please familiarise yourself with WP:DEL. Cabrils (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or/and redirect to Trevor Jackson (diver) -- the article is currently pretty bare because Cabrils did a good job of removing all the non-verifiable content, but even then there's at least a claim to notability made as a well-known dive boat. I largely agree with the delete votes that the sources don't quite back that "notoriety" up, but I do see enough passing mentions (link1, link2, link3) to wonder if there's some value in redirecting to the skipper that it's clearly tied to. Given the sources, I'd feel comfortable adding a mention of the ES to the Jackson page, which would be at least one minimum for a redirect. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. Rogermx (talk) 01:38, 28 October 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. While having few participants, the discussion has been thorough. The proposed merge target does not exist. Geschichte (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

McLeans Bar, California[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND. It's related to McLeans Ferry, California, and while I don't know what Durham calls it, it looks like it was probably just a natural feature in the river. Does not appear on the topos I can find, does not appear in GNIS. Very brief information here. Can't find anything else about this feature; mostly just turning up coverage for various watering holes of this name. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to McLeans Ferry. No post office. Confirmed to not be in GNIS. Confirmed "California Gold Camps" reference and added it to both articles. I added Gibbes 1851 map to both articles. McLeans Ferry seems to get more hits than McLeans bar and thus the ferry is possibly more notable. I don't have strong feelings about delete or merge, don't let my position block conensus. It is an open question as to whether this locale and/or McLeans Ferry were settlements or just a ferry. Comments anyone? Cxbrx (talk) 19:49, 22 October 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. It used to be bad arguments went along the lines of "it's notable" or "it isn't notable". Now we get !votes that say "meets GNG" and "doesn't meet GNG" with no indication that the sources have actually been evaluated. Thank you to those who have analyzed sources. This has been relisted twice, and I can't see any consensus regarding the notability of this topic in the discussion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ray B. Oladapo-Johnson[edit]

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

This article reads like a LinkedIn profile. If anything, consider moving to High Line -- although only if that article is expanded with people more notable (i.e. key donors, managers with past public sector experience, etc.).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Binna.Burra (talk • contribs) 18:44, October 2, 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The rationale is quite correct, it does indeed read like what should be on LinkedIn. But in my experience in combating the Nigerian UPE ring, I would like to say this; the first edit by the nom who by the way just joined 30 minutes ago is the creation of this AFD, In my experience in UPE related activity, I can categorically state that this is a bad faith nomination. For anyone who is familiar with the OrangeMoody scenario, this is exactly what is going on here.Celestina007 (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Hi Celestina007. This is kind of funny for me. I am a middle-aged Jewish man from New York. I can assure you that I am not involved in Nigerian organized crime or some suppression campaign. I came to Ray's page because, professionally, I dealt with him and when looking him up found his Wiki entry and was surprised to see one. The tone annoyed me, maybe I was having a bad day. Yes, I only joined 30 minutes ago. I probably have an old login from high school that I can't trace. The original comment/flag for deletion on the Talk page for the article last week or so was before I logged in (not sure if that helps). In any case, even if I was the Nigerian mob, if the article merits deletion for the stated reason, it shouldn't matter right? Binna.Burra (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Only the New York Daily Mail source in the article provides significant coverage from a (somewhat) reliable source. The rest of the sources either provide a passing mention or are broken links. A Google search only returned this source [9] which is not enough to be deemed significant. A search of JSTOR and Gale Academic OneFile did not yield results. Z1720 (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while the article needs a lot of work (it's bordering on WP:TNT and WP:NOTRESUME), his work as an arborist in NYC has gotten him significant coverage in a major media market. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restating my initial position, there are several flaws with this article. It fails WP:TNT, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:GNG. I cannot find "significant coverage", there are some dead links, or mentions of him in his official capacity as a mid-level administrator at Friends of the High Line. (There is an interview with him on an watch enthusiast blog website.) A far more notable and quoted executive of the High Line, Robert_Hammond_(High_Line), is appropriately attributed to that organization -- and the profile does not read like a LinkedIn. In fact, some of the language on the page in question (Ray B. Oladapo-Johnson) directly mirrors the "About" section on his LinkedIn page. Binna.Burra (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article needs work but he is notable per VocalIndia (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the New York Daily News and others, so passing WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note the nominator has now been blocked as a suspected undisclosed paid editor so this AFD nomination could have been paid for, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Please note that I was originally blocked for submitting this petition for article deletion. However I was unblocked as the "paid editing" accusation was re-evaluated. I am not being paid in any direct or indirect way for this article petition. My unsponsored, objective, view that this article does not pass muster WP:SIGCOV. One New York Daily News reference does not merit a person having their own article, namely one that blatantly fails WP:NOTRESUME. If anything, as previously stated, merge into a section on High Line of notable people, of which there are many others. Binna.Burra (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Transcendence (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG completly .. i see no evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my honest opinion , the nominator is may be a sock account with WP:IDONTLIKE or paid AfD nominator per Atlantic306's comment. Because the nominator account is newly created account and no edit on any other articles, moreover As a newbie, he have full knowledge on Wikipedia like a pro-editor or an experienced editor. Isn't this strange? What I hate the most are people who pretend like this.VocalIndia (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I read one WP page -- how to delete an article. All the others like WP:SIGCOV I did not know about until others on this page referenced them, and I read those, and agreed and incorporated them. WP:IDONTLIKE is a new one for me, I just reviewed it and I don't feel those examples apply to my rationale. Thanks, Binna.Burra (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. BJackJS talk 18:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has significant coverage and reliable source to justify keeping. Moreover, his work as an arborist in NYC has gotten coverage.185.205.141.120 (talk) 11:43, 31 October 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremi Cockram[edit]

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

Actor is unnoteworthy. A google search shows only Wiki-like articles, while Google News only brings up a single link. Seloloving (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NACTOR, and WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's a very recognizable face on Welsh television though Bearian, in a major soap for a long time. He should really have sources available, newspapers etc.† Encyclopædius 18:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russell L. Thomas[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. All references to primary sources except for a database entry. No apparent secondary sources on subject elsewhere. No credible indication of notability individually, nor by way of businesses founded. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional with no real substance or assertion of notability. — Mainly 15:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:BLP, WP:MILL, and WP:SIGCOV. Even if this total mess of an unsourced BLP could be sourced, there's nothing he's done that's notable, There are zero reliable sources on the page right now, and I've placed several tags to get citations. In 2007, this horror of a page could have been excused, but in 2020, everybody knows we're not Facebook. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UPE by paid sock. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the promotional writing in the world can't make up for the lack of reliable sourcing needed to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo nonsense, with nothing to even suggest WP:GNG / WP:BIO notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intelliquip[edit]

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

I previously PRODed this article but overlooked that it had already been done back in 2008. The rationale was "fails the notability guideline for companies." – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a product/company (now acquired by another company, about which there is no article, so no redirect option). References to routine product and commercial announcements fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. My searches are not finding the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotionalism and non-notable . the article starts out with the broadest claims "Intelliquip, LLC develops browser-based software also known as the Intelligent Front-End." but it turns out to be specialized to "automate the front-end sales process" "for the fluid handling equipment industry and is compatible with pumps, compressors, valves, blowers, turboexpanders, heat exchangers, actuators, filters, seals, couplings, motors, and variable-frequency drives". Too narrow a niche. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC) �[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Vin[edit]

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

completely and utterly non-notable musician, sourced entirely to press releases and black hat seo. Praxidicae (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NMUSIC and NAUTHOR; was moved to draft by nom after removal of non-RS but was almost immediately moved back to main by creator after restoring the same sources. Nom stated in their ES on moving that they identified these sources as 'black hat SEO'. Eagleash (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NMUSIC and NAUTHOR, Wikipedia is not a place for non-notable musicians to boost their online profile and they really shouldn't waste their money on such blatantly paid for articles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other editors' comments: no evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eagleash. 2001:569:74D2:A800:31E4:4E28:39A4:5476 (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MILL. There are no reliable sources that I can see on this page. Honestly, there's nothing he's done that is notable. He is unknown - with 131 followers on Twitter, of which several appear to be bots (by comparison, I have over 3,500 followers). DJs are dime a dozen. In 2020, everybody knows we are not MySpace. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 23 October 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) 22:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalekidan Girma[edit]

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

When I came across this in NPP, I wanted to mark as reviewed - first female pilot in Ethiopia is definitely a WP:SIGNIF claim, and I thought it would be possible to establish notability. However, on closer inspection, she's the first female Ethiopian to captain a specific type of aircraft, and that's sourced to Twitter. Of all the sources in the article, only Twitter and Facebook mention her by name - the other articles are all about a series of all-female flights that Ethiopian Airlines operate, and none of them mention her by name (according to Ctrl+F "Girma"). I spent a bit of time on Google trying to find better sources, but drew a blank - nothing that is independent, secondary and reliable gives her any depth of coverage, so she fails WP:GNG as far as I can make out. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought - the subject's name seems to be written as Kalkidan Girma in most Google hits I got - I don't know if this is a typo, or two valid transliterations of the name in Ethiopian script, but that might help people look for sources if they wish to. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~ Amkgp 💬 17:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not sure whether this is sufficient to establish notability, but her appointment as captain was covered by Fana Broadcasting in Ethiopia (link). (I'll add this to the article.) Technically she's "Captain Kalkidan" — "Girma" is a patronymic. I don't know enough Amharic to tell whether "ቃለኪዳን ግርማ" is the correct transliteration but it didn't turn up much, in terms of reliable sources. (There's no article under "ቃለኪዳን ግርማ" at Amharic Wikipedia, whose editors would presumably have an easier time finding reliable sources and establishing notability, but this does seem to have been very recent). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gyrofrog, thanks very much for explaining about the name - very helpful. I went back and checked the sources, this time using Ctrl+F "Kal", but still didn't find any mention of her in any of the non-social media ones, except for the Fana Broadcasting one the you added, which for me (as a four-sentence mini-article) doesn't really help establish notability. (I did have a closer look at this source though, which indicates that Ethiopian Airlines first female captain was Amsale Gualu, whom we already have an article about; Captain Kalkidan is indeed Ethopian's first female captain of a specific type of plane.) GirthSummit _(blether) 10:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First female pilot of the Airbus A350 for Ethiopian Airlines, even assuming it is true, is not itself notable. There appears to be little else to sustain notability under the GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ANYBIO. WP:BEFORE revealed no additional WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV. I also searched under ቃለኪዳን ግርማ. BLP articles should strictly follow sourcing requirements in guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 13:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lioli High School[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. A secondary school is not inherently notable. There needs to be WP:SIGCOV.

A quick WP:BEFORE search:

[10] - directory listing
[11] - directory listing
[12] - listing on the Lesotho Exams Council
[13] - directory

Unless I'm missing something, this school isn't notable. As ever, I'm happy to hear what others have to say. Spiderone 14:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any additional online English-language sources to help source this page. Can always recreate it if sources are made available. SportingFlyer T·C 08:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Geschichte (talk) 10:18, 30 October 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. Tone 20:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Muñiz[edit]

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

Footballer who has played one - 1 - game of his sport. There is little (i.e. one article) demonstrated coverage in non-statistic sources, nor is any further coverage likely given his totally peripheral role in football. There exists a crystal-clear consensus to delete footballers with only 1 appearance and no coverage, for instance here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, and I could have gone on further. Geschichte (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the complete failure of WP:GNG takes precedence over the borderline WP:NFOOTY pass in this case. He has a bit of coverage here but it's not enough to justify a stand-alone article. Spiderone 15:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear consensus that failing GNG is far more important than scraping by on GNG with only 1 professional appearance. Giant Snowman 15:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – he actually fails WP:NFOOTY as well, as that one appearance came for the New York Red Bulls Reserves in the MLS Reserve League. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above comments. Govvy (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a single game long ago and no real GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only in-depth coverage I can find is this - which is local coverage of a high school soccer career (hardly notable enough). Jogurney (talk) 16:54, 23 October 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. Tone 20:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Super Family[edit]

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

references do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NTV clearly states that "Generally, a television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a television station with a broad regional or national audience."; which in this case it does. I am aware that sources are lacking but both the article and the tv show are barely three weeks old. I say tag for refs for now and give the article some time to develop. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should have have been G5'd, as it was created by a sock of Daaask, violating a block.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Onel5969. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:52, 29 October 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. Tone 20:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kusuma Hanumantharayappa[edit]

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

TOOSOON to have an article about her. She is contesting the 2020 election on a Congress ticket from Rajarajeshwari nagar which will be held in November 2020. Sources provided mention her briefly and do not cut the mustard. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person currently fails WP:NPOL and the references serve only announcement of her candidature. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We can restore if she wins. SportingFlyer T·C 07:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page, she doesn't need a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.106.81 (talk) 05:23, 28 October 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 11:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in The Letter for the King[edit]

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

Poorly sourced list of characters from a book. The references given are about the book rather than specifically about the characters. The main characters would be better placed in the article about the book. No indication that the characters themselves are notable outside the context of the book and the books article is not big enough to need splitting. noq (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for "The main characters would be better placed in the article about the book" - pardon me, but have you noticed how extensive the list is, even if limited to just those characters playing important roles in the stories? Besides, as you may notice, some descriptions are overlapping between the books, while others refer exclusively to the sequel stories. And that does not include the characters created exclusively for the Netflix series yet! Dividing the character list between the two books - or deleting it - would result in a loss of overview. Therefore, I consider the existence of a singular article spanning all related media more sensible. DanielC46 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turn into an article about the characters from the original novel. Book to movie/series changes can be included in that. Starklinson 4:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete- this duplicates content that's already found, properly sourced, in the synopsis section of The Letter for the King. And I don't think the title is useful as a redirect. Reyk _YO! 09:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary content split. Each article can easily handle discussion on its own set of characters without needing a dedicated list. TTN (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others; anything that's sourced here already seems to be covered at the main article, as is standard. There's likewise no navigational aid since nothing here has its own article (yet, knock on wood). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete covered already in main article. Nothing beyond that is covered in reliable third party sources. Jontesta (talk) 00:13, 29 October 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARIX[edit]

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

no independent coverage, possibly too soon but there is no indication this meets any inclusion criteria at this point. Praxidicae (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The sourcing is no where close to what we would consider standard & a google search doesn’t turn up anything salient to substantiate/prove their notability. Celestina007 (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article satisfies wikipedia's golden rule(s).

Per deletion policy, Editing should be used to improve an article, rather than deleting a page;

As Nathan2055 has done by including improvement request template.

Articles on nearly every Internet Exchange are commonplace on Wikipedia. Worlds first Internet Exchange dedicated to Amateur Radio carries notability.

With many verifiable reliable independent secondary, and primary sources cited in article, it passes the reliable and verifiable sources measure.

Per Guidelines, Worthiness of an article doesn't depend on popularity, such as having high google ranking.

If ARIX acronym doesn't hold the google gold standard, perhaps it would be best to change the title from the ARIX acronym to Amateur Radio Internet Exchange to pull more search results. It will also provide disambiguation to article.

Internet Exchanges are a fairly dry subject, they are generally free or non-profit with neutral connectivity, so there is no promotional motivation, as can be seen on 50+ internet exchange article postings. Internet exchange articles reference location, size and Name, with little other information. These references are often single point sources such as site webpage and can include reference databases that display exchange accessibility, exchange's Autonomous System number (ASN), member size and sometimes IP addresses allocation from ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers), or in this case AMPR.

With deletion of this article, 50+ other Internet Exchange articles going back two decades should also be deleted based on same criterion.

ARIX is not an orphan article and is referenced elsewhere on wikipedia. Additional write-ups to be posted for un-orphaning a few other Internet Exchange references on wikipedia.

Original information used referencing the History of ARIX is no longer posted online, with information only available as physical published papers; History section should be removed. Airgapped (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting policy here isn't going to help. There are some things that just cannot be improved because sources simply do not exist. That is the case here. Praxidicae (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

?? are you saying policy or guidelines isn't what we follow, then what is used. Should all the other Internet Exchanges also be deleted on this principle. ? Airgapped (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying your selective use of a policy that isn't relevant here isn't helpful. Praxidicae (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most Exchanges started out as a one liner https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seattle_Internet_Exchange&oldid=174962788

The Measure of references and notability removed with alteration of Title and addition of its webpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seattle_Internet_Exchange&oldid=174984953

This article has multiple sources. Please help me understand. There are at least 20 more article entries for other Internet Exchange That follow this criterion. Are all to be deleted?

Looking at revision history, looks like this article has started gaining interest. Airgapped (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:42. This article has 0 independent sources and nothing remotely close to being coverage, Airgapped. Praxidicae (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about it. Sources in the article are primary. Search results return news about Arix Bioscience instead. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Looks like the two delete votes, use ARIX as only search method. I’d first suggest moving the title to something more appropriate, like “Amateur Radio Internet Exchange” then ask for more input before quiting.

Here are a few web sites that were used in wiki article, and available on subject:

Primary Source:

Secondary Sources:

Trivial Informational sources:

As noted, much less source information is used on most every other Internet Exchanges when articles were created. If this information is insufficient to keep it, even with an improvement request template, then roll it back to draft. It’s a bit strange that at least 20 other Internet Exchanges were approved solely on primary source of website.

Airgapped (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

-Regarding Celestina007's vote by using a google search; I would invite you to google "SIX" but instead of the Seattle Internet Exchange, which is one of the largest IXs on the US west coast. You (or at least I) get SIX, The musical by Lucy Moss and Toby Marlow. Simply the main result from google is not what should be the entirety of a AfD argument.

-Regarding Praxidicae's counter arguments; There are secondary sources. See the Peeringdb page mentioned by Airgapped above. Internet Exchanges do not have the same wide secondary sources that would exist for a person of noteworthiness to be on Wikipedia. Since Internet exchanges are only noteworthy to a smaller sect of network engineers. If you believe that a topic must have secondary sources, that would cut down many niche pages on obscure fields. And if we continue down the rabbit hole of required sources on smaller topics we would then end up in a place where we are no longer an open community driven repository of information on nearly every topic that mankind has created and turn into a encyclopaedia publisher.

-Regarding Superastig's vote, see the above on the niche argument I mentioned in my response to Praxidicae and my response to Celestina007.

-Regarding Airgapped's vote and counter arguments; whilst I do not agree with outright quoting of policy, you do make some good arguments. I don't believe your giving yourself any favours with your general... (for lack of a better term) antagonism and strict application of policy. As quite a few policies can at time interfere with each other. But, being someone who is quite familiar with the field, I understand your position. And in my opinion as such, ARIX is a valid internet exchange and should be treated as such, including but not limited to being noteworthy enough for Wikipedia.

In summary, in my eyes there are bad arguments from both sides. But being familiar with the field, I feel it is noteworthy enough for a wikipedia article, This article was just made on the 11th. You gave it 11 days before starting an AfD. I've seen many a article with a stronger argument for deletion. Give it some time to grow, in 6 months, a year, If it's still like this; Then I would agree that maybe it should be deleted.

NearMiddayNight ^{Come chat} 01:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this article interesting and notable enough to clean uo the references, add a bunch of wikilinks and do a re-write for readabilty. This concept is well within the scope of network security and redundancy. It has been discussed at network conferences such as Defcon. To someone with a network background anything that happens on this big a chunk of spectrum is inherently notable, as is the mesh architechture, if I read this correctly. The article should be expanded, actually, but fer god's sake the thing was begun less than a month ago, and the sources are going to be in IEEE publications and trade magazines like Networking World, ie not dailies. Hurricane Electric is sufficiently notable that anything it is doing is notable, imho, and the 44 network is important enough --and notable enough for its own wikipedica--that anything that happens there is also notable. This is where I clear my throat and mention that we have articles on individual courtyards of the Louvre, each and every ghost town in Texas, and all of the episodes of Pinky and the Brain. I agree that if this network has petered out in six month or a year, it might be time to re-evaluate. However, in my opinion, network over radio is very notable and a novel implementation and new access point therefore is also, even this early in its life. Elinruby (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being interesting is just WP:ILIKEIT. We need sources and the fact that you dislike some lower quality articles or find them vapid is a bad argument. There are exactly 0 independent sources here that have coverage. And as a counter to the massive walls of text above where the keep arguments argue that sources like this are reliable are not only completely and factually incorrect, but laughable. Praxidicae (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While yes, there are bad sources, but PeeringDB is as close to a definitive definition as you can get in the Network Engineering space. If you were only count secondary sources, many of the world's largest internet exchanges would not exist on Wikipedia and you would also be eliminating a bulk of the information on Wikipedia on AS Peering in the real world. The point of Wikipedia is to be a place which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.^[1] if you continue to hold this stance you then believe that a vast part of that knowledge should be eliminated. And at that point we are not the open realm of the sum of all knowledge, and become a Encyclopaedia publisher.NearMiddayNight ^{Come chat} 18:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No the point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, with notable topics, not a holding place for everything that has ever existed. That's what Google is for. You and the other two voters have yet to provide a single independent source that has actual coverage of ARIX. Focus on that instead of making WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Praxidicae (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two can play that game, stop making WP:UNENCYC arguments, your stance that it is WP:JNN shows complete disregard for the field of network engineering. Since I am not as an accomplished Wikipediean as yourself, I shall not continue to make myself look more like a fool. But your blantant disregard for the thought that topics may be so obsurce but reliable sickens me to the core as to why I became a Wikipediean in the first place. I have gotten into talkpage discussions with people, and make arguments similar to what your doing, however when I realized that a) they know more about the field and b) they could better gauge the appropriate usage of Wikipedia for that topic due to their knowledge in that field. I stepped aside. I am not a push over, I understand the importance on the selectiveness and reliability of Wikipedia. However no one can be knowledgeable in every area and be able to make a correct judgement on every topic. And it is my firm believe your way out of field on this one. NearMiddayNight ^{Come chat} 19:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're failing to make a cogent argument here. WP:V is a policy. Independent sources are not optional. Praxidicae (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather insulted that I'm being dismissed here. I am saying that a novel implementation of the IP protocol is inherently more notable than a given episode of Pinkie and the Brain. The mesh architecture makes it notable in my opinion. Now, should Alfie (talk · contribs) or another of the more technical editors in this discussion explain to me that some of the other exchanges Alfie mentions also have this architecture, I might listen to him. I can't swear they don't. However, this deletion discussion so far to my mind only underlines the totally arbitrary nature of the current process. Why would we delete an article on this one exchange, but not the similarly-sourced pages for the others? Let's compare apples to apples. Ok, more conceivably people are interested in Pinkie and the Brain, but the fact that some random wikipedian finds something obscure does not not mean that it is. "Notable" does not require that the denizens of this page have heard of an article topic. As a long-time wikignome, I would like to mention that I have seen notability dicussions about the history of Goa, an expert on anthrax, and the Panama Papers. There is an unfortunate tendency for articles to get nominated for deletion by editors who do not understand them, or are put off by the unfamiliar. Elinruby (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Praxidicae asked for my opinion on this subject. As someone with both service provider networking experience and an amateur radio license, I can assess the RSes better than she can - but I concur with her. Honestly, this article is not well written and really needs a full rewrite to be anywhere near encyclopaedic (but that's not something for AFD.) I agree that there are very few RSes that establish notability per Wikipedia policy, and ultimately that's the benchmark her. ARIX is small, young hobby project by a couple of radio amateurs. It's not a notable IX (where DE-CIX, AMSIX, etc are) nor a particularly notable amateur radio project (like RACES, AMPRNet, etc). ARIX is a really cool project and if I could justify 44NET space, I'd probably want to peer too - a way back I used to work on a big distributed community IX in rural scotland, which allowed community ISPs in Scotland to interconnect with the wider world. It was good fun! Now I push fibre around for events networking and play with broadcast all day. Also fun :) -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 19:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alfie (talk · contribs), perhaps you did not catch that this is an AMPRNet spinoff. And no it's not terribly well written, but that is a different issue Elinruby (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If wikilawyer we must, you are conflating verifiability and secondary sources. Secondary sources are a preferred proof of notability (although some deluded souls maintain that the sources must also be peer-reviewed), and yes, the sources must be reliable. If you actually look at the policy you are citing, you might notice that one of the most important traits is "not self-published". The FCC is not ARIX. They also must not be questionable. An official registration is pretty unquestionable when used to establish item descriptions in a table fer crying out loud. This is what we call a primary source and while secondary sources are considered preferable for purposes of establishing the notability of the page topic, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using an FCC database's web interface to verify an FCC registration.
The concern with articles that rely on primary sources exclusively is that they might stray into original research. But if applied strictly, this policy leads to the elimination of every compilation and list on wikipedia. The danger with self-published sources is WP:PROMO. The idea is that of course the author thinks the book is great, but what did the New York Times have to say? I agree with this, but this is just not that kind of article. Or topic. It would be best if the people who want to keep these articles work in some discussion from secondary sources. But you also can't go on a rampage and decide to delete everything that relies on primary sources, or you would eliminate almost everything in science and technology, and I know for a fact that pretty much every article on French history, archaeology, law and jurisprudence would go out the window as well. All of these rely heavily on primary sources.
TL;DR = its sources are verifiable. They are not questionable, and only a few are self-published. But if you are going to go after every press release of white paper on wikipedia, you simply do not understand the concept of balancing conflicting policies. ion
Incidentally, you should not rely on Google results for notability. It's a start for a quick assessment, but you should remember that what you get back is highly influenced by your browser and browsing history, not to mention search term — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 01:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Airgapped: you appear to believe that sources must be online, or they cannot be used. This is erroneous. In fact, books are somewhat preferred, as immutable. This runs into trouble on technology topics, of course, but you are erring too far in the other direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 01:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Wikipedia:About". Wikipedia. Retrieved 29 October 2020.

Delete fails WP:GNG. (t · c) buidhe 04:19, 31 October 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 11:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Formula 2 Championship[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. A google search yeilds very little information pertaining to this season. The most I could find are a rumour article about Theo Pourchaire taking part, rumours about 2020 F2 drivers driving in F1 (and therefore not being in this season of Formula 2). I couldn't find a reliable source to back up the chassis delay from '21 to '22, but even if I could this can easily be covered in FIA Formula 2 Championship and this mention is therefore not satisfactory reason to keep this page.

So, to conclude, it is WP:TOOSOON for this artice to exist as there are not a sufficent number of sources available for this subject to be notable at this time.
SSSB (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions.
SSSB (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not much to be found about the 2021 season, certainly not enough for notability. That the only source on the article is from 2017 is quite telling. A7V2 (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sufficient information provided nor from organizers nor from third-party sources. Corvus tristis (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way WP:TOOSOON, and not enough meaningful content to draftify. Will be notable in about 6 months time, but no sources about the season yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. per WP:CSD#G11 criteria by admin Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kukhareva London[edit]

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

Non notable organization that falls short of WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows me hits mainly in user generated sources which are unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a typical British fashion brand article, but bigger, more informative and better organised than e. g. these smaller stub-looking ones that were kept and not deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Archive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Naka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornback_%26_Peel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricouni_(brand)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weird_Fish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henleys
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammond_%26_Co.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_Umbrellas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firetrap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finery_(company) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittalio (talk • contribs) 09:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, in these reliable sources you may see the mentions about this British brand. The thing is that the brand doesn't promote via SEO, that's why it is not in the Google search top:

The brand is quite famous in the London fashion industry, so you may see the references in the famous mass media stated above.

In addition, let's follow the Wikipedia rule Deletion is not cleanup and Wikipedia is a work in progress. The article looks fine. If there is a need to improve it - let's do it! --Vittalio (talk) 08:57, 22 October 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) 08:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Melbourne City FC (State League) seasons[edit]

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

The list isn't notable enough to have its own article as it was contested due to possibly being part of Melbourne City FC but this list is seperate due to being a different club. HawkAussie (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The state league team probably doesn't meet the relevant notability guidelines, so we definitely don't need an article on its performance in various seasons. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We cannot keep this article as it stands, but it may be better to move or draftify it somewhere. Footscray JUST have a page, and a good one - this team succeeded them in the top division in the state after they left the NSL, but then bottomed out in the state leagues: [14] It would be a good section in an article on that club, but we'd have to establish a page for that club first. SportingFlyer T·C 11:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NavjotSR (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify - the state team does qualify for an article as they are eligible for the FFA Cup but they would need to have an article created first for this list to have any value here Spiderone 17:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Teams at this level, State League Division 4 West, generally won't meet notability guidelines. Certainly a season by season list is not required. Nigej (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the content to my userspace. If Melbourne JUST/Melbourne City FC are notable in a WP:BEFORE search - very possible as a former top flight state club, but will have to look in the archives - this content would work well on that page. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Melbourne City club that was formed in 1990 claim to have first played in 1991.[15] They don't claim the history of the JUST club that last played in 1990. It seems that the 1990 club has effectively bought the playing right of the old team. As a club that hasn't played in the first tier of the state leagues, it's unlikely that the club has received significant coverage, let alone consistent significant third-party coverage of their matches. Hack (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apologies for confusing the two teams in my deprod. ~Kvng (talk) 22:09, 26 October 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) 12:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soontrue[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Generic. Fails WP:NCORP scope_creep^Talk 07:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Events are routine and do not pass WP:NCORP. 1292simon (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:26, 28 October 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 11:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McKenna (actor)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BASIC. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACTOR. He had a significant role (Joey Buchanan) on One Life to Live for four years, and had the lead role in the 2020 film The Will. It's not very strong, but I think it scrapes by to pass notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe he meets WP:NACTOR per Toughpigs, but I'd also include his lead role in King of the Ants 1 and Re-Animator: The Musical 2. Some of his recurring roles seem to be notable enough as his such as his character on The Young and the Restless was pivotal in two different murder mystery storylines and received some praise for his work on the show.3. It's a bit difficult to search online about him for sources due to his fairly common name, the different variations he's used (Christopher McKenna, Chris McKenna and Chris L. McKenna) and that there is a different Chris McKenna that is a screenwriter. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find some non-trivial coverage of McKenna so I believe he meets the GNG as well. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - due to the non-trivial coverage highlighted above and two reasonably high-profile roles Spiderone 21:24, 22 October 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 close. The article is now about something else than the nomination and almost entire discussion pertains to. I will procedurally nominate the "new" article so a discussion may take place about that entity. Geschichte (talk) 10:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

İlbilge Hatun[edit]

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

I'm wondering how this article got approved for publishing on Wikipedia, but other characters from Diriliş: Ertuğrul haven't gotten the same. They are all characters from a heavily fictionalized series and none merit their own articles. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: what do you think? Teavannaa (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a thought. This character from the series was based on a Göktürk warrior, but that real figure doesn't even have her own article (she is mentioned in the infobox of her husband). Aside from that, there's the matter of WP:NOTE. Teavannaa (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Teavannaa! See my comment at User_talk:Limorina#Articles_about_characters, per current sourcing it's an obvious Delete. I looked at WP:SPEEDY but didn't find an obvious fit. The article was "approved" in the sense that the creator put it in mainspace themselves, which is WP-acceptable (though I think in this case not advisable), as is nominating it for deletion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! I read over your comments on her page and in response, she said she created the page "for fun not for views". Definitely should be deleted, for all the reasons above. Teavannaa (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Teavannaa: Conventionally, the nominator doesn't !vote; they just provide the nomination rationale. I suggest you strike the "delete" to avoid confusion. pburka (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks. Teavannaa (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are enough reliable sources available to keep the article? John Cummings (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although an ambitious project, maybe we can create a seperate and proper article for the main characters of Diriliş: Ertuğrul. Currently it's a small table in here. Untill that article is formed, I would say Draftify, so it can easily be merged into the article. About the question of John Cummings, here are a couple of sources by major Turkish publishers about who the subject was in real life and about things in the serie: Sözcü [16], A Haber [17], Hürriyet [18], Akşam [19] [20], Takvim [21]. ~~I must say that this article is very poorly sourced when compared to what is available.~~ ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Teavannaa: you didn't have to vote in favour of deletion, as you are the nominator. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 17:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, Styyx! Could you explain in a little detail what "Draftify"-ing an article entails? I still think all of the separate character articles are unnecessary and the table included in the main article is sufficient; more can be added to specific character bios instead of them having separate pages. Teavannaa (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with not having a separate page for each character. What I mean with a separate article is having an infobox and description, maybe a picture, just like this article for the main characters and keep the table-style for more unimportant characters, all of this in the same article. On a second thought, this can also be done in the article of Diriliş: Ertuğrul. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 18:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to join the vigorous discussion (slight exaggeration) at Talk:Diriliş:_Ertuğrul#Cast_and_characters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Small table"? Really? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a bit, a bit, exaggerated. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete: no source, dubious notability. Anyhow, there is a problem on WP with this avalanche of articles mixing fiction and history since the success of Turkish "Ottoman" TV series.--Phso2 (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It seems as though the fictional series has led to numerous unproductive and incorrect edits of established articles on the historical personages, too, from "fans" of the show. Teavannaa (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the interested, Selçan Hatun is similar. And Saru Batu Savcı Bey (though not as similar). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFICTION as written and I don't see better sources in my search, through I am open to considering Turkish sources if anyone can find them, maybe there is something there? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Piotrus, these are the ones I found (also in my comment above): Sözcü [22], A Haber [23], Hürriyet [24], Akşam [25] [26], Takvim [27]. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 12:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'd suggest expanding the section about characters in the article about the show first. If it is all just plot summary, there is not much that we need, and a stand alone list of characters would still need to pass WP:NLIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the native language sources are shown to satisfy WP:GNG. Otherwise, this does not need an article at this time. TTN (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made major changes to the article, have a look... maybe you'll reconsider your decision? Limorina (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Limorina has made changes to and moved the article during this discussion. Relisting one time to see if their changes to the article, now at El Bilga Khatun, change anyone's mind. Closing admin please note that if you close "delete", you will need to delete El Bilga Khatun manually.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, the article is not about a fictional character anymore but a real person. The sources I listed above (which were about the fictional character AND the real person) combined with the sources in the article guarantee notability. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 13:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's good enough. I don't read Turkish or Chinese, and I'm not sure these refs are WP:RS on history (since it's now meant to be an article on history). With GT, they (the Turkish ones) seem say "She is the mother of the Turkish Khan of the Göktürk State, Bilge Khan." and that's hardly enough for an article. Something closer to a modern historybook/journal would be good. Also, not sure what ref "zh.wikisource.org" is supposed to add, that's like saying "ref:Wikipedia". I'm guessing it's some sort of primary source, but this is very much not clear.

It also seems that this person lived centuries before when the tv-series is supposed to take place. Maybe artistic license, or perhaps refs or editors misunderstood something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:52, 22 October 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 11:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Loves Company[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. I cannot find any independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability for this organisation: Google hits are limited to the organisation's own website, plus its own pages on Facebook, Instagram, GoFundMe and similar. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Jodi O'Donnell-Ames based on the available sources in a Google News search. TJMSmith (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mind providing links to such sources if they actually do exist? Also, Jodi O'Donnell-Ames article was just deleted due to lack of notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a supposition as we don't know why that article was deleted and does not mean this article should be deleted just because that one was. Multiple arguments were made for reasons why to delete that article and the closer did not elaborate as to which was their deciding factor. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite what the nominator says there is significant coverage from multiple independent sources if the nominator would care to actually look at the search engine and dig a little deeper. Multiple universities, reputable news organizations and specific media outlets for ALS community (I would take their word on what is verifiable in their community over that of a wikipedia editor) have given this non-profit organization significant news coverage. This is an attempt to wipe out an article because of a perceived and unconfirmed notion of COI by a paid contributor. Again, unconfirmed to the point no one has even attempted to ask the creator if they are a paid contributor or research the facts other than throw their opinion around and try to pass it off as expert analysis. Opinion doesn't carry the same weight as policy--Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to any potential closer of this AfD. I ask that seven additional days be allowed, after whatever decision is made, for the original creator of the article to answer my requests for comment on their talk page. I will endeavor to determine whether this person is a paid contributor or there is a COI issue regarding this article. IF that is the case then I move to have the article on Jodi and this article on the organization be draftified and allow myself and other editors to bring it to a place where it can be merged into one article for inclusion in this encyclopedia. The organization is most assuredly notable and there is precedent for inclusion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory in which the argument was made that the organization didn't deserve to be included because they are "a bunch of fakes". That is not reason enough for exclusion. Neither is the argument that this is a COI PR stunt article based on opinion. Few verifiable sources were provided but it was enough in that case. Likewise there are enough verifiable sources to conclude that Jodi and/or this organization she founded is notable and worth inclusion in the encyclopedia. I will make the same request on the AfD for the organization.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Great cause as ALS is truly a horrible disease. However, sourcing is terrible (mainly primary cites) and article sounds too promotional. No reliable third-party sources found in a Google search. On a side note, Tsistunagiska, please refrain from putting huge walls of text in a discussion and let folks decide for themselves. Thanks. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beemer69: Is this a personal request or have I violated some Wikipedia rule that says I can't speak my opinion?--Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - I have given this AfD a lot of thought. While the organization's cause is noble, article fails notability per WP:NCORP/WP:ORG/WP:GNG. Article is WP:PROMO promotional, may be COI based on the recently deleted article of the director (same creator). Sourcing is extremely weak: Citation #1 a blog-magazine from Capital Health (a medical company) promo, not a RS; #2 MercerMe a self-described hyper-local news site; #3 local Indiana news "send us a news tip"; #4 MercerMe "hyper-local"; #5 local news cover story (so far this is the only item that may pass as SIGCOV); #6 local Chamber of commerce promo; #7 their own website (primary); #8 Sponsored content (paid advertorial); #9 unverifiable info from a printing company, not RS; #10 primary source (org director's book published by vanity press; #11 another self-pub vanity press book by org director. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON; maybe in a couple years. Netherzone (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote based on new citations SIGCOV in RS found by Ritchie333. Netherzone (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone The fact that the organization, reputable universities, and local/national media sources state that this non-profit is the only one in the entire United States that provides educational and emotional support to children and young adults who have or had loved ones fighting ALS is hugely significant and notable on its own. While MercyMe does state they are hyper-local that only adds credence to the notability of this non-profit because they live in the same community with them. The site also speaks about their reliability and they are accessible for verification at any point. Today.com (The Today Show) ran a piece by Eun Kyung Kim on this non-profit which also adds to credibility and notability. All of the other sources mentioned, and there are tons not listed, may not prove notability on their own but they add up to it. Nothing in our notability policy precludes the use of local news or media when sourcing the notability of a subject. It does require significant coverage, which this non-profit passes, and must be verifiable, which all the sources combined can confirm. While it is discouraged to use self-published sites and personal websites it is not forbidden and does not preclude a subject from, being notable, so long as it, alone, is not the only source. WP:COMMONSENSE is a thing. All of the sources combined proves this non-profit passes WP:GNG. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ALS Association has an entire branch of their organization devoted to children and young adults [28], as does the National Institutes of Health, ALS Worldwide and others. This organization could be mentioned in the main ALS article, or listed in External Links. As above, this article is WP:PROMO likely created by a COI or UPE and does not meet NCORP. Please refrain from bludgeoning me, this is not the first time. Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per many news hits such as this, this, this and this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ritchie333 has posted what appear to be several good sources that are not yet used in the article, I'll relist one more time to allow others the opportunity to comment on any reason why those may not be sufficient to pass WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, especially based on the reliable and verifiable sources identified above. Alansohn (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG with People and Today. Also, there's regional RS coverage in multiple regions, each of which is the size of a small country: New Jersey [29] [30], Pennsylvania [31], Illinois [32] and Massachusetts [33] [34], which, combined, is good enough to make WP:THREE. h/t R(3²*37). Le v!v ich 04:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Complies with NORG and GNG, particularly with the good sources found since nomination by Richie333 and others. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:44, 27 October 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. Geschichte (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset, Missouri[edit]

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

State Historical Society calls it a store and a post office, topographic maps just show a church and a bridge. Only coverage I can really find on Google Books and newspapers.com is one or two passing mentions and some brief coverage for a recreational access point currently located at the site. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It's a really difficult search because it's such a common term, but enough places call it an actual place that I think it passes WP:GEOLAND. "Sunset,+Missouri"&dq="Sunset,+Missouri"&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjKuqS8tbfsAhVxoVwKHaEEBA8Q6AEwB3oECAgQAg "Sunset,+Missouri"&dq="Sunset,+Missouri"&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3lcjMtbfsAhVTe8AKHccACdc4ChDoATABegQIARAC "Sunset,+Missouri"&dq="Sunset,+Missouri"&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwim-f_xtbfsAhVnQEEAHcMSC1c4HhDoATABegQIARAC There's also a sign on the highway which says "Sunset" per Google Maps. SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: - I'm not sure about the first two of those. The first one may be referring to another place, as the person is said to have died in St. Louis, which is 3.5 hours with today's roads and travel from this Sunset, so it seems a little odd that they would have been buried in this Sunset, especially when there are cemeteries with the same name in the St. Louis area. The second one appears to be referring to a boat named Sunset on the Missouri River. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see the same, and just don't see how this was ever a town. Mangoe (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Another rural Missouri community, e.g., it appears on the 2011 USGS map as Sunset. Sunset bridge in the community gets more coverage than one would expect, and Sunset Park is the subject of coverage as well. I see newspapers mentions of people being from Sunset or the Sunset area but I'm not going to pollute the article with random obit references. This one is kinda similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagrada, Missouri and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meinert, Missouri, I believe there's enough to keep it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GEOLAND per Milowent above. If someone is from Sunset, that suggests a community. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:24, 29 October 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sluggo Boyce[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 1995 Province (third citation) seems to offer significant coverage. The Washington Post article would round that out - does anyone have access to that? I don't. So can't verify.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, can't access The Province article either. Can anyone verify? — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow more time to analyze sources per Ad Meliora's comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would his career as a snowboarder make him notable? Not sure that he's competed in the Olympics or other notable tournament. As is, the article needs a rewrite and proper source tags. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He has never competed in FIS-sanctioned snowboard competitions. Geschichte (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article badly needs a re-write. I will do some light clean-up. That being said, Boyce is undoubtedly notable as a longtime pro skater and company owner. --Wil540 art (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have developed the technique/style in the sport of skateboarding. The nomination is not at all convincing. Geschichte (talk) 15:51, 29 October 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. There are multiple redirect suggestions here, please feel free to carry one of them out. Geschichte (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C.B. Robinson Bridge[edit]

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

PROD rationale was Random modern road bridge in Tennessee. It inspired a poem, but poems don't count as RS. This looks promising, but is largely about the person the bridge is named after. Found a copy of the legislation naming this bridge. Beyond that, just turning up passing mentions and a handful of wikipedia mirrors and derivatives and a few user-generated databases. Fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. PROD declined by BilCat with the rationale of as the poem implies, it might be noteworthy for.having been named after a living African American, possibly the first such things n Chattanooga or Tennessee - we.need to do.due diligence before deleting it, which is a reasonable deprod. I've looked into the poem, which is by Minnie B. Sledge, but I'm not seeing any evidence that Ms. Sledge is particularly prominent (willing to be disproved), and aside from a slight bit of attention when the bridge was opened, there's practically no coverage of this. Possibly redirect to List of crossings of the Tennessee River? Hog Farm _Bacon 23:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-07 move to → C. B. Robinson Bridge

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The poem seems fine and, according to the governor, it is "the most expensive bridge we have in the state. ... it is an indication that it is not just a little bridge. It is an important bridge". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A poem is not RS. The other source is okay, but only contains four sentences specifically about the bridge. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. BEFORE showed only mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the topic directly and in depth. It is clearly not-notable, but if others think a redirect to List of crossings of the Tennessee River or Tennessee State Route 319 per GEOFEAT is a good idea, I don't object. // Timothy :: talk 17:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could a plausible Redirect be to Clarence B. Robinson's article, itself? The bridge is mentioned there already, and those brief sources brought up here could be added there. Rorshacma (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty generic highway bridge. God, if just any subject of a few rhyming lines got a free article... Redirect is of course fine, either Timothy mentions would be appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 00:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Yet another run-of-the-mill highway bridge with a dedication. Mangoe (talk) 20:05, 24 October 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. A shown by the sources added by BrikDuk, an argument can be made that the organisation passes WP:GNG. On the other hand an argument can be made that the subject fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. No-one has definitely disproved either of these two arguments and so, no consensus has been reached. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond SPCA[edit]

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

Non-notable organization that fails to meet WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search shows the subject has a lot of promotional and fundraising coverage (adopt this dog, donate pet food, 5K runs) and typical animal rescue press releases (we saved this bunch of abused dogs), all either brief mentions or routine local feel-good promotions intended for fundraising purposes. But there's no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to reach the NCORP standard. The article has a mere dozen edits since it was created 5 years ago. Even the editor who unPROD'd my nomination two months ago didn't contribute content. The article rests on the laurels of a single (though stellar example of coverage) article from 2011. [35] Though laudible, as are all truly charitable efforts, this organization is ultimately a typical animal humane organization lacking sufficient notability for a standalone article. Normal Op (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. There are thousands of animal shelters around the world doing excellent jobs; this one is no different. William Harris (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick internet search found an NBC news report from 2009 and other significant coverage about this organization with a very long history. I noticed there is on the talk page a note from an inexperienced editor who did not know the way to have citations in the article. They are instead cited inline as is not the custom to do. I added two citations but find there is much work still to be done improving the editing on this article. It should be therefore kept and improved. BrikDuk (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the article tells me that the author of two of these three sources is Robin Starr, an employee of the shelter, therefore not WP:INDEPENDANT of the subject as per WP:GNG. The other source is an interview with Robin Starr as the source of the information, which is arguable about being independent. With just the one source the shelter does not meet notability. William Harris (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find that she does work there at the present time but rather is a board member, and I agree that is not objective. The text of the article contains very much unnecessary information that needs editing. However, I find multiple, reliable sources and ongoing coverage about this organization with long historical record in the community. BrikDuk (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to provide a couple of reliable sources that provide significant coverage, per WP:SIGCOV, please? A mention here and there does not provide the required significant coverage. William Harris (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment I have completed reworking of the history section by removing much unneeded text and adding a total of ten citations for what remains in this section of the article. I have not reworked the about section which also is needing much work. BrikDuk (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Atsme 💬 📧 13:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence to suggest this animal shelter is any more notable than any other animal shelter.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems the most relevant policy is WP:ORGCRIT, which is straightforwardly "the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I take Animal Sheltering Magazine to be reliable in this domain, and there is an NBC article. There are also several local media outlet articles, which overall makes the organization just pass the bar for me. I also wonder what other animal shelters have WP articles and where the bar has been set by previous editors. Maybe I shouldn't be taking Animal Sheltering Magazine so seriously? Jmill1806 (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BrikDuk has added references. There are reliable references from mainstream news websites. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to delete. We don't need stand-alone articles on every local affiliate or offshoot of national/international organizations. What we probably should have is list articles of American, etc., SPCA groups (or animal shelters, or animal-welfare organizations more generally), with concise summaries of them. Animal Sheltering Magazine isn't independent of the topic and is a niche trade publication without a clear reputation we can rely on. The other coverage is mostly trivial. The article is predominantly drawing on the org's own self-published content. There's also coat-racking, about euthanasia at shelters and the recent increase in no-kill shelters, as if Richmond SPCA caused that change. Lot's of local-people namedropping. This just doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I'm reminded of all the "my favorite local restaurant or amateur softball team or whatever" articles we delete. If we keep articles like this, we'll end up with a lot more chaff (e.g. on local chambers of commerce, homeless shelters and food banks, community branch libraries, churches and pastors, etc.) They all have histories, and local coverage, and maybe occasional mention in field-specific newsletters, but they're not good encyclopedia subjects. We were once making something of a categorical exception for schools, but even that has been pared back, with many merging into school district articles. Anyway, an article on an org like this should be kept if there's something unusually notable about it (major national awards, some scandal that put it in national-level news for a long time, or whatever). But this is just a charity doing its job, apparently competently. Competency isn't notability. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As per Society_for_the_Prevention_of_Cruelty_to_Animals none of these organizations are affiliated with each other. BrikDuk (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's true that the local-level SPCAs aren't affiliated with the national one except by duplicating the name (same with humane associations & HSUS). However, everything else SMcCandlish wrote was spot on. This is an ordinary organization with a long history that is doing its job ordinarily, and this article along with the dozens of other shelter, SPCA and HS articles have been used primarily as a promotional tool relying on primary sources (which includes interviews) rather than noting something notable. Normal Op (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And whether they're legally affiliated or not is irrelevant; we can still have a "List of US societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals" or something even more generalized. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of this AFD, I like that idea, though I think it would be contentious. See this recent discussion on a simple list of vegetarians. Jmill1806 (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a list of organization by what they exist for (a defining characteristic) is very different from a list of people by a lifestyle/philosophy choice (generally not defining from an encyclopedic perspective). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I agree the article definitely isn’t very well written, a variety of sources indicate that the subject appears to be notable. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We normally do not keep articles on local cha[pters of national organizations, or the encyclopedia would be unbalanced. Thei general characteristic and operations are covered in the main articles. Their specific local events are too transient and local for an encyclopedia . Anyone wanting information about their officers or details cna find the in the web. The guiding rule is is the funamental policy NOT DIRECTORY. This is an exact example of what it's meant to deal with. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd meant to cite WP:NOT#DIRECTORY myself but forgot. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Elections in Alderney. Including other similar articles. Sandstein 15:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Alderney by-election[edit]

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

Alderney, 2000 inhabitants, is part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey (so not an independent country or dependency on its own).

Basically (though purists will disagree), this is a by-election for a seat on a small village council, nothing more. We usually don't even cover full elections per village, never mind this. Fram (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alderney is a self-governing dependency of the Crown, it has its own government although through an agreement with Guernsey certain functions are seconded to Guernsey. Laws passed in Guernsey DO NOT apply to Alderney unless Alderney agrees. Laws passed by Alderney go to the Privy Council for approval, NOT Guernsey, so it is nothing like a village council, a comparison to Monaco or Liechtenstein would be better. Ânes-pur-sàng wiki 08:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monaco and Liechtenstein are completely self-governing, internationally recognised independent states. Alderney is more comparable to e.g. Flanders, but on a miniature scale (not that Flanders is that big, but still, 6 million vs. 2 thousand). Fram (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-10 ✍️ create

Comment it seems that merging all the articles to a single article on "Elections in Alderney" would be an improvement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal On reflection, by-elections are quite small affairs, and I think it would be best if each were combined with the full election in which the resigned/deceased member was appointed, this would explain changes to the list of elected representatives, so the 2020 by election information is added to the 2018 election as it was a 2018 elected individual being replaced. No change to the title of the 2018 election. Ânes-pur-sàng wiki 22:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The information on elections is encyclopedic and deserves to be included on Wikipedia but there probably isn't enough information on each election to justify a separate page. I would therefore recommend that this is merged into a single page covering all elections in Alderney Tracland (talk) 18:08, 28 October 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 15:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Streetonians RFC[edit]

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

This team, which has been in CAT:NN since 2010, was just promoted to the seventh tier of the English Rugby Union system. Most of the coverage I can find is either affiliated with the team, is brief schedule mentions, or is in unreliable sources. The title of this work sounds like it's significant coverage, but it's not really. No newspapers.com hits, although that source is focused on more US coverage. Looks to fail WP:NORG. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surely too low a level to be covered. Suspicion is that there's very little to say, hence mostly trivia currently: "Each year the team holds the Denise Vinyl Cup before Christmas, a friendly game played with mixed teams made up of all of the players in the club." and apparently they "train on Tuesday evenings at Haggerston Park." Nigej (talk) 19:53, 22 October 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 15:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AhnLab, Inc.[edit]

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

Article doesn't present any claim to the company's notability, and checking Google for news about them shows that they are most likely not notable. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is not much to be found in English sources, but this suggests it might be notable in Korea without there being English sources. "... music, according to the statem|nt. Ahnlab Profit Up 50.4% South Korean computer security leader Ahnlab Inc. reported a 504-percent surge in third-quarter net profit thanks to pbust sales of anti-virus software and online security services. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Korea_Economic_Report/Cey0AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0" There are more sources including these two, but the coverage is insignificant. I'd say it's too early to dismiss it without someone checking for things in Korean. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2019/11/133_278423.html http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20201019000867 Graywalls (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 22 October 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) 07:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Békéscsaba 1912 Előre season[edit]

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

Shouldn't have been created in first place as all fail WP:NSEASONS

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Nope, the Hungarian second division receives enough secondary press coverage that these seasons likely pass WP:GNG and each needs to be considered on their own merits. WP:NSEASONS is not exclusionary. SportingFlyer T·C 13:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only one that might scrape through is Debrecen, given that it was a bit of a shock that they got relegated in the first place. I'd be highly surprised if there were more than routine match reports for the rest. Spiderone 17:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these alleged significantly detailed sources? Giant Snowman 11:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picking one game at random between two teams low in the table, I found the following coverage: [36] [37] The NB II is also covered as a whole with round recaps by goal.com in Hungarian and other national Hungarian newspapers. I think WP:GNG is met for a club's season article if all of their games are covered by secondary press, and that seems to be the case for the NB II. SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Canysp: are you able to link us to any secondary sources covering these league seasons in depth? Spiderone 13:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: match reports are WP:ROUTINE/WP:NOTNEWS and not significant coverage of the season to meet GNG. If they were, then lowly non-league teams would have notable seasons! Giant Snowman 16:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the context of a sports season. If a team's season has received routine secondary coverage for the entire season, that season has been "worthy of note." SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's just 'news'. Routine coverage is not sufficient, the key thing here, which these articles lack, is significant coverage. Giant Snowman 18:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I entirely disagree and I've argued this point before in other AfDs. What makes a club's season notable? A season is an event which goes on typically for a period of eight or nine months. If reliable secondary sources take continual notice of the season through coverage, especially including routine match reports, and especially if that coverage is at a non-local level, the season itself has been "worthy of note." Match reports are generally considered routine for the coverage of players, since a match report should be generated for any notable season, and the match report will not cover the player in any sort of significant detail, but consistent match reports are exactly what we would expect for a notable season. Otherwise, what sort of coverage would be enough to pass WP:GNG for an ongoing event over months? (I also looked up a secondarily written match report for a recent non-league game I was at and could not find anything, so I'm not expanding any scope with this argument.) SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with SportingFlyer. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 12:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about WP:NSEASONS is exclusionary. Make an argument these fail WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm having no problems finding significant media coverage in Hungarian when only looking at very recent reports. one, two, three. Looks like NSEASONS is met too, being a top professional league. Nfitz (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Nemzeti Bajnokság II is not a top professional league. It's not even a top league. It's second tier by definition. Spiderone 11:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The teams in NBI only get crowds of a few thousand. I'm assuming that these in NBII are in the hundreds. While the league and teams are clearly notable, it seems to me that this huge level of detail is not warranted by the importance of the teams. Nigej (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Media coverage of amateur sports is trivial in nature. Geschichte (talk) 15:44, 29 October 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Budafoki MTE season[edit]

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

All fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep As SportingFlyer said for the next season, the Hungarian second division receives enough secondary press coverage that these seasons likely pass WP:GNG and each needs to be considered on their own merits. WP:NSEASONS is not exclusionary. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you provide evidence to support this assertion? Spiderone 19:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Canysp: are you able to link us to any secondary sources covering these league seasons in depth? Spiderone 13:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 12:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about WP:NSEASONS is exclusionary. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about NSEASONS not being exclusionary but GNG most definitely is exclusionary Spiderone 11:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets NSEASONS playing (and being promoted) in a top professional league that typically gets extensive media coverage - which also means it easily meets GNG (even without the extra coverage of Covid delays and promotion. Examples are one, two, and three. Nfitz (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 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 15:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bagatora railway station[edit]

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

This article concerns an abandoned railway station in Pakistan. The article has only ever cited one citation since its creation, and that sole citation does not concern the subject matter of the article. I have attempted to locate additional sources but have not been successful. I have also considered merging the content of the page into another article, but there is insufficient information to determine even what page this article would be merged into. In short, there is no indication that the article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria or that there are sufficient sources to support the content. Therefore, I propose that this article be deleted. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete - This scientific paper seems to support that this railway station existed (and an approximate geocode). But can't find anything else other it showing on a station dropdown on the Pakistan Railways freight rates page. If nothing else is found leaning supporting a delete, as while the bar is very low for railway stations, we still need to be able to say something about it (like what line it's on, where it is, what the station looks like...). Jumpytoo Talk 07:45, 22 October 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 11:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proud Pour[edit]

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

Procedural nomination after attempt by Globg a week ago. Proud Pour should be deleted because it is basically an advertisement, may not meet notability guidelines, an orphan, and the contributor has a close connection with the subject. These all point to the fact that it should be deleted.--Globg 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. None of the current sources are acceptable for purposes of showing notability, and the only halfway-decent ref I could find was [38], which is not good enough. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first sentence sounds like an advertisement, non notable sources used. No major awards won by the business for their product etc... Oaktree b (talk)
Delete: An article about a branded product. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from a worthy project which the company supports, and I am not seeing evidence of attained notability for the firm/brand itself. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 28 October 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 15:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McMahon (computer scientist)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Previously prodded by User:H.dryad. Deprodded by User:Joswig with "McMahon was one of the founders of Symbolics and worked there in the 80s. He contributed to a lot of ground-breaking software, like one of the first object-oriented window systems". Unfortunately, the sources added since are WP:PRIMARY, his Google Scholar count is very low, and I can't find even a paragraph summarizing his life or significance. A search for "Mike McMahon"+"window systeams" produces 70 google hits, very niche, and nothing that seems to collaborate the assertion given. An aside - the article is written in the past tense, suggesting the subject is deceased, but no dates of birth or death are given. If this person is important, we need sources to prove that, and those don't seem to exist, unfortunately - or at least I can't find them. (Few mentions in passing like "The NWS was designed and implemented primarily by Howard Cannon and Mike McMahon during 1980." from [39] are not sufficient, whatever NWS is; the linked disambig doesn't even contain a reference to the New Window System described in the article, and we don't have an article about it). Sadly, this seems to be beyond the case of "a footnote in the history of computer sciences" - the footnotes about the subject have not been written yet... By all means, please prove me wrong and rescue this, keeping in mind NBIO and RS policies, of course. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - this is a common name, so may I please have a few days to research this one? Bearian (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: relisted. Hopefully 12 days would be an adequate enough time for some research. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly there's an WP:NCREATIVE case? He's the main author of several pieces of notable software: EINE/ZWEI, Columbia MM, likely others. It is difficult to locate sources, due both to the common name and age of the work. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, my Spectrum Internet was down for two days. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sibject is not an academic so the relevant guidelines here are WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The sources given in the article are either authored by the subject or provide brief (in fact, as far as I can tell, in all cases, just single-sentence) mentions of him. The available coverage falls far far short of satisfying either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oakhaven Baptist Academy[edit]

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

Article about a secondary school that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / WP:ORGCRIT. No sources in article or found during WP:BEFORE provide direct and indepth WP:SIGCOV. There is basic WP:ROUTINE / normal run of the mill coverage. The article makes no claim towards WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 15:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm suspicious. It's not indexed at Great Schools. Several Internet searches find wildly contradictory information. I literally could not find a single good, non-newspaper source to confirm any details. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given suspicion raised by Bearian would like something firmer than the SOFTDELETE consensus I see now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a complete lack of coverage in reliable sources Spiderone 14:38, 22 October 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 15:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ama Qamata[edit]

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

The subject has played a significant role only in one show/web series i.e Netflix's Blood & Water. It fails to satisfy eligible criteria. It was nominated for WP:BLPPROD twice by the two editors but original author managed to remove the PROD without making improvements needed to establish notability. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the relevant SNG criteria. However, BLPPROD was contested by the original author only once, the second time it was contested by Jmertel23 who added maintenance templates in the article with the edit summary "Not unreferenced; Clean up/copyedit; maintenance templates" after seeing that there was one source.. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has two main cast roles in notable productions; the lead role in Blood & Water and a main cast role in Gomora (TV series) as confirmed in reliable sources in the article such as Elle and Cosmopolitan so she passes WP:NACTOR and deletion is unnecessary in my view,Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 15:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Probably WP:TOOSOON for this individual. KidAd talk 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Looks like there is some coverage in independent sources, e.g. Elle, Sunday Times (SA), The South African, HITC (not sure if that's a reliable source), Briefly (not sure if that's a reliable source) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a couple of sources to the article; looks like there is just about enough independent coverage in reliable sources to justify a keep. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: All added sources discuss her role in Blood & Water TV series. Wikipedia says WP:ENT "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBirdsShedTears: Yes, but they all mention other roles as well. I've added a couple of sources that both include Gomora (which has Qamata's other leading role) in their sub-headlines. (I take multiple to mean more than one, but I may be ignorant of consensus about this in which case I'm happy to be corrected.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (^talk) 20:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomin J. Thachankary[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. Article is unsourced and WP:BEFORE turned up nothing that meets direct and indepth WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS / WP:IS. Wikipedia needs to follow sourcing and notability guidelines strictly for BLPs. // Timothy :: talk 15:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now~~ - the article was started yesterday. The AfD appears a little too short-triggered. While there is no evidence of WP:N, the section structure indicates a work in progress, and it is entirely possible that the author(s) will provide enough evidence of notability in coming days. Of course, it is possible that ultimately, in 2 weeks, we see the article still doesn't meet WP:N, but I think AfD's within a day of article creation are a bit too hasty. Again, if there is no evidence of WP:N in 2 weeks, I'd be happy to change my vote to delete. If I don't log in around then, editors should feel free to count my vote as Delete if there is no WP:RS added by that point. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Changing my vote per suggestion from Vexations — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I see no indication that the subject is notable, but the creator ought to be able to make that case before we proceed with deletion. Vexations (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not sure I quite understand the reason for draftify which isn't an impossible AfD outcome but is relatively rare.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Vexations provided a good alternative. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:24, 22 October 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 Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar. A lot of mentions and brief comments do not rise up to the standard of significant coverage required to meet the GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tripura Sundari Ammani[edit]

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

Under the British Raj, the title of Maharani (Queen consort) was more of a ceremonial position in the Princely states of India. Unlike Maharani Gayatri Devi and Maharani Vijaya Raje who established notability aside from their royal titles post-independence, said Maharani's article is only a genealogical entry and also completely unsourced. WP:BEFORE searches have revealed nothing substantial aside from more genealogical and databasic entries. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:NOR. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ changed to merge per below ~~Keep again~~ Thanks to nice work by User: Oleryhlolsson, This family is historically notable and many people will find current descendants interesting, which is part of the reason for Wikipedia. She was a royal consort of Maharaja and not a deposed monarchy cruft. VocalIndia (talk)

Exactly. It was her husband that was notable, not her. Notability is NOTINHERITED from one's family. Not to mention the article is completely unsourced which is also in direct violation of WP:NOR. Sunshine1191 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is not a member of the barbie family but a senior member of the royal family !!! Btw, queen consort is default notable. VocalIndia (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maharani consort NOT Maharani regnant. Your responses are model examples of the argument Notability is inherited, which as per Wiki policy...it is NOT!!! WP:INVALIDBIO clearly states that person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A; relationships do not confer notability. And as per WP:NOTGENEOLOGY...no the wife of a king is not notable by default for a stand-alone article. Sunshine1191 (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually VocalIndia there seem to be more than enough sources regarding Tripura Sundari Ammani to justify an article on her own. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Oleryhlolsson for adding new references. There is now no justification whatsoever for this article to be deleted. VocalIndia (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ See below Nothing in an encyclopaedia is notable by default. The sheer existence of a Queen Consort is dependent on the existence of a King Regnant and just because one is notable it doesn't grant automatic notability to the other as per WP:NOTINHERITED. It just so happens that most Queen Consorts have articles about them as they easily pass WP:BIO due to the significant coverage of their lives, because well... they're Queens. But this not a hard and fast rule and is definitely not applicable here due to the complete lack of coverage (zero refs). The entire article, right from her marriage to the children born out of it is purely genealogical material and is already covered under the Early life and Family sections of her husband's article. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. TheRedDomitor (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The editor Rajachandra who has made the most edits to the article including adding most of the information, formatting etc claims to be the son-in-law of said Maharani.[40] So the article also violates WP:NPOV along with WP:V and WP:NOR, which is basically all the three core content policies regarding biographies. Wow! Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge into Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, her husband's article as we have been doing lately. Again, my preference is to merge and save genealogical information, but my stance is a minority opinion. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated above, all the verified genealogical material present in this article such as her marriage and children are covered in her husband's article and the rest of it like her childhood information and qualification as a bride is all unverified original research. So how about if we just delete and redirect. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would find it reightfully understandable that many users of this encyclopedia would expect an article about a queen consort of a reigning monarch, but as long as this article was completely unsourced I tended to recomend a redirect to her husbands article - but then I began searching for sources (so far only in English so there might very well be additional relevant sources in local Indian languages), and I found a number of sources on various aspects in the article, so I've now added 10 sources to the article, and therefore my recommendation can only be keep. There are still some unsourced statements in the article and if some unsourced statements needs to be removed, then I would leave this part to other users to deal with. For the matter of the article itself (regardless of some unsourced statements or not) it has proven itself both notable and well sourced. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to truly Thank Oleryhlolsson for their exemplary efforts in finding refs for the article. However as the nom and the first person to raise the question of the article's notability it is my duty to emphasise on the latest developments. So here is a rundown of the 10 new sources added:

1. From Bangalore Mirror (RS): The coverage is about the Dasara celebrations that take place annually in Mysore with the emphasis being on 2017's celebration and the current titular Maharani being pregnant at the time. Maharani Tripura Sundari is only mentioned in one sentence as "The last time it happened was in 1961 when Maharani Tripura Sundari Ammani was expecting.". It isn't in-depth coverage and the article is not about her.

2. From Indian Express (RS): The coverage is about the death of her son Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar in 2013. She is again mentioned in only one sentence "Wadiyar was the only son of Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, the last ruling king of Mysore, and Maharani Tripura Sundari Ammani.". Again a passing mention.

3. Again from Bangalore Mirror: The article is about the birth of a son to Yaduveer Krishnadatta Chamaraja Wadiyar, the current titular Maharaja. The coverage related to the former Maharani is purely genealogical with a mention that "After six years, he married an Ursu, Tripura Sundari Ammani. She was the daughter of Bala Nanjaraja Urs."

4. The fifth is a web blog about her husband life with again only a genealogical mention "Jayachamaraja married again, in 1944, after he became Maharajah, his second wife being Tripura Sundari Ammani, daughter of a Mysore nobleman. ".

5. It is about her great-grandson wanting to build a memorial for Lancers who fought in Haifa. She isn't even mentioned once by name throughout the article.

6. Again an article about her son's life with only a genealogical mention that she was his mother "the only son of Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar, the last ruling Maharaja of Mysore, and his second wife, Maharani Tripura Sundari Ammani Avaru,".

7. Again an obituary in The Telegraph on her son's death in 2013 with her being mentioned only genealogically as his mother.

The remaining three refs are also similar genealogical mentions which repeat the same info already stated above. All 10 refs put together only prove four things: She was the second wife of Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar, the Maharani of Mysore, granddaughter of a courtier and grandmother to Yaduveer Krishnadatta Chamaraja Wadiyar. The article still fails WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTGENEALOGY as she has absolutely no notability on her own, independent of these four people. I have checked for sources in Kannada too and couldn't find anything that hasn't already been covered here. A delete and redirect to her husband's article is still the policy compliant action imo as all of this information is covered in the Early life and Family sections there, which completely eliminates the need for a stand-alone article about her. But nevertheless pinging TheRedDomitor incase they want to change their vote after the new developments. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I come to a somewhat different result. The sources cited, that mentions Tripura Sundari Ammani under one name or another (there don't seem to be one single form of her name, that all sources use, so the variation in the name makes it a little difficult to make a 'complete' search for digital oneline sources regarding Tripura Sundari Ammani) are all from the period 2013-2019. No relevant older sources than this have so far been found online. The reasonable conclusion from this must be, that a lot of material hasen't been digitaliced yet and/or been made avaliable online. Whit such a number of sources from 2013 to 2019 there are bound to be plenty more sources from before september 2013 in printed form, eg. one would expect one or more obituaries (or reports from Tripura Sundari Ammani's death and funeral) from the year 1982. Therefore I'm most confident, that adequate in-deepht sources for Tripura Sundari Ammani exists in some printed form somewhere in India.

My second thought is, that when a service like World News Network judge, that Tripura Sundari Ammani is important and relevant enough to have an article of her own, then it would seem more than strange, if Wikipedia should judge, that this queen consort isn't worth an article of her own.

For these reasons (and others that I haven't got the time to write more closely about, since my library close in six minutes) I most certainly still recomends a keep for this article. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must acknowledge that the effort put in by Oleryhlolsson in finding sourcing is exemplary, but I still don't think it is enough to Keep the article as a stand-alone page in it's present state. As well assessed by the nom above, all the sources put together only provide genealogical intel but nothing in-depth about her life other than a ceremonial position. THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an argument with many probabilities. The only thing that I find certain here is that in it's current state, the article is nothing more than a genealogical entry. Everything else kept aside, my major concern is that at the time of British rule and for a small period post-independence, India had more than 500 princely states which is a guarenteed 400+ consorts. Keeping the article in it's current state means that it is quite likely to become an excellent OTHERSTUFFEXISTS model for hundreds of more genealogical entries. The way I see it the solution is simple; Redirect the article to her husband's for now, with history, and in the future if more in-depth coverage is found the article can always be further expanded. TheRedDomitor (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going into a lengthy debat on this but I do like to make a single note. It dosen't seem that World News Network has articles about every consort of Indian rulers - far from, so I don't see the argument, that one articles like this would constitute a claim for hundreds of "similar" articles as a serious problem that necessarily should be a cause for consern. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying anything about future possibilities as the number of situations that could be are vast; sources may be found, may not be found, may end up becoming a OTHERSTUFFEXISTS model, may not end up becoming said example...who knows. The present fact is that in it's current state the article is a genealogical entry and a redirect to her husband's article is the conventional thing to do. Also, the World News Network ref is really not that big a deal. WNN is a global news aggregator, not original publisher. The articles that have been added here are the same ones aggregated there and the information about her is literally titled Wiki and has been created through consumer submission. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the extensive effort at sourcing, coming to consensus about whether those sources establish notability or not feels like a better outcome than no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Weak Merge into Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar: Oleryhlolsson did a pretty good job finding sources for the current information in the article. However, I cannot side with you or VocalIndia on this one due to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on notability. For starter, this article fails to meet the basic criteria for notability of an individual due to lack of sufficient significant coverage. All the sources used in the article except one only talk about her as trivial mentions in passing while the only one that discusses her in detail is just genealogical information. If there is evidence that she exercised any political authority during her lifetime, then she might meet the secondary criteria WP:POLITICIAN. I tried to find more sources online and even searched for sources in Hindi and Kannada but nothing came up unfortunately. This is not that surprising since a vast majority of queen consorts of princely states of South Asia seldom get written about outside of genealogical information and that is why Wikipedia often does not have separate articles for them. There might be some books out there somewhere that discuss this Maharani in more details but since we have not found them yet, this article is more likely than not going to remain a not useful permastub for a long time. Since all the info in this article could be put into her husband's page, I feel it would be better to delete as per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. StellarHalo (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer number of references that have turned up regarding Tripura Sundari Ammani from the very modest timescale, 6 years - 2013-2019 is to me an indication of, that a Maharani, or at least this particular Maharani was important - even in her own right.

Well, as for the criterias for notability then the "Basic criteria" says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. So when we argue and disagree on this then it's all a matter of what we judge to be relevant when the word "signinficant" is used, and to what extent we wish to use the word "may" in favor or in disfavor of notability.

Then what is a Maharani and may she be notable in her own right, and not just as the wife of her husband? From the article we get some informations regarding her duties, and how she perfomed these - unfortunately this particular part of the article is so far mostly unsourced, but from BangaloreMirror September 2017 we do actually get a little insight in the importance (notability if we use Wikipedia-language) of a Maharani. She is an important part of the Dasara festivities or Dasara rituals and even though we so far only have identified this one source regarding this (still from the period 2013-2019), then it at least tells me, that there can be found informations other than of "purely genealogic content" - and as I pointed out in a previous answer, the number of references for this individual in digital form between 2013 and 2019 makes me confident, that she may be mentioned (perhaps even "in deapth-coverage") in even more non-digital books and medias from the period 1942-2012 (70 years).

I've tried to find a copy of "Who's Who in India", and I can see, that one from the year 1973 can be found in The Royal Library in the capital city of my homecountry, but I don't know when I next time might come near this library, and I wouldn't actually be surprised, if she isn't mentioned in this reference work. The problem here is of course, that she is/was a woman, and even if her life may have been filed with various rituals and tasks important to the local population and/or the princely state of Mysore, then this would easily be considered as less relevant for a work with focus on politics, administration, business and military etc. - so even with the best intentions with this encyclopedia, we risk to repeat the perspective of previous times on what is relevant or not - merely on the basis on, how much people from previous times have received coverage in medias from the latest decade or two, and thus disregarding many important tasks the the female part of the population have had throughout time. So as for now, if the question is whether we should keep the article on its own or not, the to me, it is sufficient that we so far only have identified one source that deals with her duties as a Maharani. I can easily accept this state of affairs until more, better and more comprehensive sources in time may turn up. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what is furthermore interesting about BangaloreMirror is the fact, that this article confirms, that older material about Tripura Sundari Ammani do exist and can be found in some way or another. If this wasn't the case, it would have been impossible for the newspaper to give an accurate account on things that Tripura Sundari Ammani took part in almost 60 years ago. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the sources that have been identified and shared upstream. Sufficiently proves notability of a historical figure. Good work everyone in the sourcing and the narrative. Ktin (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A historical figure and meet WP:NPOL. In my country Myanmar had Mahadevi, of the ruling Saopha state, e.g Shan States. Saopha have the same power as king. Mahadevi is the chief queen consort of Saopha, they have power in their own and regarded as the 'mother of Shan state'.185.205.141.120 (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She was never a politician and nor do any of the given sources state as such, so WP:NPOL does not apply whatsoever. For those who have voted Keep i am wondering what policy has been regarded while making the assesment because from what i can see it is a mere speculation that THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I have already provided quite a detailed account above showing that all of the sources identified are nothing more than passing mentions. No in-depth coverage other than a speculation that they may turn up in the future. Speculation isn't a guarentee and in such a case a redirect is the appropriate action. Its quite evident that this discussion has been stretched long enough and thus, as the nom, I request an admin to take a decision on the matter, whatever it may be. Sunshine1191 (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sunshine1191 on the matter of a decision. Admin asked for possible consensus on 22 October 2020. We have given our statements and oppinions, and I don't see, that there is much more than this to be said for the time being. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After going through the whole discussion above as well as the updated references added by Oleryhlolsson (thank you for this), I am inclined to Delete. The refs with genealogical mentions are not sufficient for an independent article. While notability is not inherited, WP:NPOL doesn't apply and I didn't find anything significant about the subject outside the mention of her family. --KartikeyaS (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% admin bias and takes more time than they needed ! What is the community value of these AfDs? So Happy to change delete :) VocalIndia (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable outside of the family. Which is reflected in the low quality of the available sources. I'd also be fine with a redirect to the target already suggested above. Whatever leads to there not being an article anymore. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biomedical research in the Gulf Cooperation Council[edit]

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

Long, rambling, overspecific essay. The sources are so incomplete as to be useless (wtf is "Value Edge Research" anyway?) and/or otherwise do not seem to bring the subject up at all. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure promotionalism, and very poorly written at that. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 28 October 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! 08:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Wealth 2020[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Of the 7 refs provided; Four are run of the mill coverage such as the film's release on New Year, partial box office collection etc. The ref from Kwong Wah Yit Poh (RS) is only primary cast interviews and the last one is a Youtube trailer. ~~One very brief review is provided but~~ As per WP:NFILM guidelines, two independent reviews from RS are required to establish notability and currently not even one is present. WP:BEFORE searches for reviews by independent RS such as Kakimuvee have come back with zero hits. Actually if you go to see it, the article is currently more or less a mirror of the film's IMDB page[41]. Fails WP:NFILM TheRedDomitor (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; you're absolutely correct in saying that we're not an IMDb mirror here. Clearly fails NFILM due to shortage of reviews available Spiderone 08:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At lease there is 1 Youtube review and 1 all-round review cited.

Keep Dear all, but why do I feel that my articles that I have largely edited are being watched now? I know that there are other articles which fails both, less formatting and cite no sources, but they are not being targeted or deleted. I'm feeling that right now article is being deleted because u guys have noticed me in other articles for deletion and now are examining me through my user contributions list. I honestly feels very sad though.. I hope that after this u guys could stop. LoveFromBJM 3 October 2020

Aside from reviews, aren't some of the other references cited from strong sources, just like other film articles who will cite production notes, coverage, box office. Why would you say that these sources are not useful? Shouldn't it be at least Weak keep.

Spiderone (talk · contribs) Added 1 more review source from Youtube, though not written, can be considered as independent RS, in the 18-minutes video, the speaker has criticized the film's using of cheap jokes, clearly not an endorsed ads.

@LoveFromBJM: You seems to be missing the point. It is the notability of the said article as a whole that is being questioned, not you as the creator. Yes other films too cite stuff like production, box office etc but those are in detail and from officially confirmed reliable sources. All the sources currently cited in the article are basic entries and one-paragraph coverage of the film's release date, other competing films etc. None of it explores the topic in-depth. The actual reliable ref from Kwong Wah Yit Poh is primary cast interviews. Primary cast interviews need to be backed up by secondary sources. YouTube reviews by individuals are not RS as anyone can review a film of their liking and post it on the website. If Youtube is being used as a citation then it needs to be from the channel of an official RS. Frustration about the fact that an article of your creation has been put up for deletion is understandable but using a passive aggresive tone and arguments like OTHERSTUFFEXISTS will not help further your cause. If there are other such articles that aren't notable then pls do bring it to the notice of an admin, other editors or you yourself can choose to do something about it. Also, it might be a good idea to go maybe go through the Afc process while creating an article next time. TheRedDomitor (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The article lacks in-depth coverage needed to establish notability. 2 of the refs are only about the release date and as stated above, the primary source (interview) isn't backed up by secondary sources. I have read through the review provided, the first para is a summary of the plot, the second speaks about lack of established names in the cast and only the last para speaks about cinematography/writing etc. The YouTube review is a fan review from a channel called Jokes Whut (not RS). If the film was indeed notable then there should have been more in-depth coverage and reviews by now. Put together it isn't enough to establish NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:: Note to closing admin The above description of the review in reference 6 is somewhat incorrect. It is in fact three small paragraphs that are all highly critical analysis of the film from the get go, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Here is the google translate version of the review: "Almost all the characters in the movie are born out of nowhere. They come just as they say, there is no shaping process at all, and they are simply messy. The production is close to the point of a child's play, watching the former HVD niche and the entertainer play against the extras who have no experience in acting, it is almost awkward.

The allusion of a small place is tied to the God of Wealth, and it is hard-made into an unconvincing story. The dialogue that resembles a moral education comes out of the actors' mouths, which is more old-fashioned than the drama of middle school students. The most memorable one is the Malay actor who resembles the late Binanli, but unfortunately was wasted by the crew to play tricks.

I would advise those people in the society to change the sponsorship of movie tickets to the public to watch other local movies. Don't produce and provide stories by yourself. Local movies will make a living during the New Year, and you will have a lot of merit." imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck incorrect comment, apologies to Sunshine1191 Atlantic306 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: The excerpt that you are quoting is from the review for 大财神 (The God of Wealth; also at discussion at the Afd's. The review for this movie is one above that, atleast I think it is because the translation for that title is Family Things 2020 (家有囍事2020 not 财神2020, which is the title for this article), but it is a translation and it does have 2020 in it. Plus all four films were released at the same time around new year so I'm assuming good faith in the creator. The review for this movie is summarised exactly as stated by editor Sunshine1191; Para 1-plot outline, Para 2-casting issues and Para 3-cinematography summarised briefly. I strongly suggest that you either strike or modify your note to the closer above as it paints Sunshine1191 in a false/bad light.

TheRedDomitor (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added more secondary sources from major news website / remove release date reference LoveFromBJM 4 October 2020

Keep Covered in Malaysian sources, notable enough.† Encyclopædius 08:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reviews found. All sources in the Malaysian Wikipedia article are about the filming starting, its release, or the people involved. Not one single review. Fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there is in fact one short review in reference 6 in this version which is highly critical so obviously independent, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and update: Firstly I would like to express my sincere gratitude to TheRedDomitor for ridding the stain questioned on my morality and to Atlantic306: No worries, mistakes happen. That being said I would like to emphasize on the two matters at hand. The first is the creator's comment that they have added two secondary sources. To that I would like to point out that the first is a primary interview summary about the director of the film, where he speaks about this film and a few other films of his undertaking. Notability isn't automatically transferred. The second is the same primary interview of the main cast as stated above, only reported by a different source. Neither are secondary sources. The second matter is of the one brief review provided. As well spotted by the nom, the title used in the review is different from the one in the article. Further probing into the matter has revealed the reason for that...it is a different movie! Family Affairs 2020 (家有囍事2020) is another movie that released around the same time which is what lead to the review confusion due to translations. This is the Wiki page for that movie. This basically means that Good Wealth 2020 does not have any reviews to establish notability and is sourced completely by data-basic entries, primary cast interviews and Youtube stuff. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi all, sorry for adding the wrong reviews, too much confusion. Anyway, aside from reviews, aren't the other sources listed: production news, cast interviews, which are cited in others articles too, could already been counted as good source from notable news website, so what exactly counted as secondary sources? User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM) 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources are sources that do not involve anyone related to the topic. A source by an independent third-party. In these cases above the reports are basically summaries of the interviews given by actors involved in the film and are so counted as a primary source. If any external independent RS covered the information in these interviews in an article format (stating verified factual information) rather than a report format (stating information based on the word of people involved) then that would be a secondary source. And as stated in this discussion one too many times, reviews and secondary sourcing are a must to establish NFILM, as without that, comprising of only release dates, cast names etc the article is databasic not encyclopedic. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree with Atlantic306 that there might be just enough independent sourcing to keep this. Eliteplus (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion has really run it's course. GNG guidelines clearly state that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."; this is clearly not the case here as all of the sourcing either comprises of primary cast interviews or YouTube fan reviews and trailers, neither of which are in-depth coverage by independent sources. From my POV this is a clear consensus wise Delete as well, because Atlantic306's Weak Keep was based on the presence of one review which was later found to not be the case. NFILM requires the presence of two independent reviews to establish notability but currently not even one is present. No prejudice against the article's recreation in the future if reviews are ever written. But anyways, whatever the outcome may be, this Afd requires closure. TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --KartikeyaS (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this lacks reviews and therefore fails the notability guidelines for films. So, it's a clear delete case. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 15:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corona (film)[edit]

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

While this film could become notable, it currently is not. Nobody working on the film is notable nor is the production company behind it. It has yet to be pick by any company for distribution. It could easily never be released or receive an extremely small release. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Tentative keep I'm willing to incubate this if the discussion comes out as a delete, but I'm going to tentatively vote as a keep. It looks like this got global coverage when it was first announced and it has gotten a smattering of coverage since then, including an announced release date that apparently fell through. I think it should pass WP:NFF for the most part, particularly as it seemed to be a jumping off point for discussion about the appropriateness of filmmakers using the pandemic as a film plot point. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I technically agree with some of your points, but for a film made by a bunch of little-knowns, it certainly has had a reasonable amount of coverage. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, or Move to Draftspace. It does have a bit of coverage, but could use more. Also, just because the developers aren't notable, the creation can still be. Exhibit A: The Worst Movie Ever!. The cast is a group of unknown actors, and made 11$ in the box office. Why is this notable? Because its, ironically, one of the worst box office hits of all time. In this case, this movie, while the cast and producers are unknown, would still be notable because of COVID-19. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 13:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely can be notable without the people working on it being notable. My argument is that it's not there yet. I wouldn't be surprised if this film becomes notable, but I just don't feel that there's currently enough coverage to warrant an article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there is direct (more than significant) coverage from reliable sources per WP:GNG. Its production was notable per WP:NFF. We have articles about unreleased films, so it is a non-issue if this film does not have reviews from reliable sources. Just make sure the article is not promotional in tone. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously meets WP:GNG, in agreement with User:Erik above. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:38, 25 October 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) 12:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Shea[edit]

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

Non-notable political strategist. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. I expected much more from the the #6 most influential political personality in the state of New Jersey. For reference, #5 is Ronald Zellman from The Sopranos and #4 is a large pile of dirty laundry in the shape of Chris Christie. KidAd talk 02:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I Guess Searches only really shows not much, other than blurs from indexes and an obituary from a deceased man with the same name (rest in peace). Does fail WP:NPOL due to being a local political figure without much coverage. It's surprising how certain things you would expect to be notable, but just aren't. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 12:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. This is not an article, it's a word salad. I assume an article could be created because he has held several important posts, but "this ain't it," as they say in New jersey. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 23 October 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.

[1] Philipps, Dave (7 January 2015). "Iraq Veteran, Now a West Point Professor, Seeks to Rein In Disability Pay". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 15 October 2020.

[2] Gade, Daniel (Summer 2013). "A Better Way to Help Veterans" (PDF). National Affairs. 16: 53–69.

[Wikipedia_about_page-3] "Wikipedia:About". Wikipedia. Retrieved 29 October 2020.

[1]

[2]

[1]