Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 20	February 22 >

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William R. Hawkins[edit]

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

Hawkins is an edge case, so I look forward to others' input. I feel fairly strongly that he does not meet standards of WP:ACADEMIC—no named professorships, little to no peer reviewed publications, etc. Ditto for WP:ENTERTAINER for his supposed radio show, which I was unable to locate any information about through this Google search.

The strongest argument for notability is per WP:POLITICIAN; he was nominated as the GOP candidate for the 1990 United States Senate election in Tennessee, losing to Al Gore by over 2-1. I was unable to find much mention of him online (example Google search). NYT mentions him in passing in an article about the GOP primary and upcoming election, and that’s about it. As NYT said, Gore was “expected to handle easily whichever Republican he faces", which possibly explains the lack of coverage one would expect for a major party nominee. Given the lack of significant coverage, I think he ultimately fails WP:GNG. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People aren't automatically notable just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, and this certainly isn't sourced well enough to suggest that his candidacy should somehow be deemed more special than everybody else's candidacies — so his notability or lack thereof actually does have to be judged entirely on whether or not he gets over our notability standards for academics or broadcasters, but there's nothing stated or reliably sourced here to suggest that he would pass those tests either. Bearcat (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:POLOUTCOMES. I want to stress some additional reasons. First, the article has zero secondary sources, and so he'd fail WP:GNG. He received less than 30% of the vote, losing every county. There are no secondary sources in either this article or 1990 United States Senate election in Tennessee, because it was a foregone conclusion that Al Gore was going to get re-elected, and so newspapers at the time didn't cover his one and only campaign to a significant degree. He doesn't get inclusion merely because the future VP/Presidential candidate/Nobel Peace Prize winner ran over him. I would not oppose a redirect to the election article. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With no incoming links I am not going to create a redirect here given HD's comment that wasn't really refuted by the earlier redirect contributions. Creating the redirect (or not) is therefore left to editorial discretion. Daniel (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assoluto amore[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC; no charting information and no sources. lullabying (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch, which appears to be its only source of relevance. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch - song by a non-notable artist, that does not warrant a separate article. --Ashley yoursmile! 17:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch, nothing gives the song reverence for an article. Link20XX (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Per above redirect to Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch. Alex-h (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This song was only made for the Italian dub version of the series and isn't part of the show's original soundtrack in Japan. lullabying (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Article does not cite any source. WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT apply. The proposed target "Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch" is not appropriate since this song is not part of the anime's soundtrack. It is only used in the Italian-dubbed version, which per-se is not notable. HĐ (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (of a slightly weak nature, just about verging into no consensus.) Daniel (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shanghainese and Lower Yangtze people in Hong Kong[edit]

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

This article by a single editor (Prisencolin) seems to have been compiled in an attempt to circumvent a current Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Category:Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent, recreating the previous Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#Category:People of Shanghainese descent. Many/most of those listed were not born in Shanghai, they were born in Hong Kong or in Canada. We have long-standing restrictions on categorizing people by ethnicity or heritage or residence, and do not categorize based upon the name of a city or regional residence of an ancestor. Many/most of these are not even of pre-1900s Wu Chinese language. There is an extant WP:ANI on Prisencolin.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of those categorization-based objections are just that. They are for categories, not standalone lists. There is no intent to "circumvent" deletion discussions because not only did I mention this list exists in said discussions, but it was actually encouraged by other editors, albeit as a section in Shanghainese people in Hong Kong. --Prisencolin (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Category:Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze descent, for which this was the list article, has been closed delete.
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Category:People of Ningbo descent, for which this was the main article, has been closed delete.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nom inappropriately suggests this list was created in bad faith. There’s no such thing as “circumventing” a CFD in article space, because not only are the deletion processes separate but the standards for categories are more stringent than lists. The nom also should not have mentioned the ANI which as far as I can tell has no relevance here. That said, deletion discussions for related content are certainly relevant to consider, just not determinative. postdlf (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Valid item in the study of the history, sociocultural perspectives and demographics of this territory. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the rationale applies to categories, not lists, so no rationale for delete has been given. 'Listify' is an option in cfd as an alternative to 'delete': see eg Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual#Listify. WP:CLN addresses the matter. Oculi (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The list need citations and actual connection instead of merely descent. For example, Run Run Shaw has company in Shanghai before 1949. Charles K. Kao was educated in Shanghai French Concession (which has a documentary by RTHK that invited Kao to visit Shanghai and re-visit school and places of his childhood). Tung Chao-yung has company in Shanghai before 1949 and moving his business empire to HK afterwards. However, for Tung Chee-hwa, unless there is some coverage on his Shanghai childhood, i don't see any real merit but Wikipedia:Listcruft to include Tung Chee-hwa, since unsourced/routine coverage are not notable. Matthew hk (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Matthew hk: Tung Chee-hwa has been frequently referred to as "Shanghainese" in sources like [1] [2]. Also, do be aware that "Shanghainese" in this context refers to the greater Lower Yangtze (Jiangnan) region. Please see the associated article for a list of citations for this definition.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 23:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that "the article was created by a single editor" is listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INVOLVE). Otherwise, I have no real stance on these lists of people either way, and this is neither an argument to keep nor delete. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ignoring a number of 'keep' !votes which had no policy basis whatsoever, we are left with a discussion around NCORP v GNG and then an evaluation of sources. HighKing correctly notes that NCORP is the key guideline to be referenced in this discussion, per my understanding of policy and current practice. At that point, I need to weigh up the argument about the sourcing...and once again I find HighKing's argument the most persuasive. This is a close-run thing and, like all close-run things, it may change in the future if there are new sources that pop up - so this close definitely isn't precluding a recreation if appropriate sources appear. Daniel (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Bus[edit]

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

No coverage outside of local news (see WP:AUD) - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources in the article as well as these sources: [3][4][5]. Certainly notable and certainly meets BASIC. –Davey2010^Talk 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I’ve pointed out in the nomination, subjects that are only covered in local news aren’t good enough for NCORP per WP:AUD. SK2242 (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Birmingham Mail is sold across the West Midlands, and the articles appear on Birmingham Live, which is read by over 9m a month, I think they count as regional not local news and so therefore can be counted as per WP:AUD Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable bus company. passes WP:GNG. DoctorsHub (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDiificult to find refs as company name has been used by 3 UK companies, one in India and 1 in Singapore. However added more refs including High Court case. With OneRoute award, a national award in the bus industry, I think this meets notability.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's not notable. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 09:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs some work, but not reason to delete. Lilporchy (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable per WP:GNG. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meeting BASIC and/or GNG is irrelevant - this is a company and the appropriate guidelines are 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. They're all based on company announcements and/or interviews and have zero in-depth information on the company (that wasn't provided by the company) - these cannot be used to establish notability. Having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of the provided sources vis-a-vis NCORP specifically.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 23:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I'm not sold that I've done a thorough news search, because it's proving somewhat difficult to distinguish news about this and news about the unrelated Green Bus Fund. But I'm not coming up with much of substance. Willing to be proven wrong. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of witches in Harry Potter classified by blood purity[edit]

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

I don't see this being a notable topic for a Wikipedia page, it belongs on a fan Wiki. ★Trekker (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in-universe fancruft. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete: I can see this being useful in some format but as is, the current article does not have any secondary sources and seems to have been created as a response to my comment on List of magical girls. lullabying (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though a plausible topic for a Harry Potter wiki. Current version only contains women for some reason, is basically unsourced, and is far worse than Fictional_universe_of_Harry_Potter#Blood_purity in every regard. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the creator intends to create List of wizards in Harry Potter classified by blood purity at some point for the male witches. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft, or redirect to Fictional_universe_of_Harry_Potter#Blood_purity as a secondary option. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is pure and simple fancruft with no real world usefulness. I also hope if we delete this we nip in the blood the as bad warlock/wizard list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - encourages prejudice against witches based on their heritage - what are we, Death Eaters? Equality for all witches, regardless of blood purity, I say! --GRuban (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have never published original research. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Devoke water 04:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft that fails WP:LISTN, just from the title you can tell it's WP:INUNIVERSE considering blood purity is not an encyclopedic topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notwithstanding other potential issues with this article re: COI, I am satisfied that consensus supports this article meeting the notability threshold. Daniel (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Francis Byington[edit]

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

Maybe slightly more notable than common citizen of the time, but not notable enough to surpass GNG threshold. Every elected district attorney tends to get some coverage. The The National Cyclopædia of American Biography entry does not cover anything about the article's subject beyond the name appearing in the list of children. Graywalls (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC) -clarify: have a closer look in the birth year in Cyclopædia. That entry is for the article subject's father. The article subject does appear in that Cyclopædia entry in the listing of his father's children, a truly trivial coverage. Graywalls (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this reference is only there to provide a citation for the relationship to Byington as the son of Lewis Byington, an early pioneer of Sierra County, and Catherine (Freehill) Byington. Please see secondary sources listed below that meet WP:GNG. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The essence of notability is someone who is set apart from his peers. This is a great article and it is the reason we are building this encyclopedia. The subject is therefore notable per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG:

He is the author of several books including the two-volumes: Byington, Lewis Francis (1931). The History of San Francisco. S. J. Clarke. OCLC 9592779. OL 6768917M.
He was elected president of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which provides water and electric power services to the city. He held this position until his death in 1943.
He was elected San Francisco District Attorney, serving from 1900–1905, which is noted in the biographies from the book: History of the Bench and Bar of California.
He is listed at the Library of Congress at Byington, Lewis Francis, 1867-
He was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which is noted in a secondary source, the book:San Francisco Its Builders, Past and Present : Pictorial and Biographical · Volume 2, 1913, S.J. Clarke, p. 249 COI editor: --Greg Henderson (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A newspapers.com search for "Lewis Byington" turns up 3,427 hits from 1868 to 1942, and a search for "Lewis F. Byington" turns up 2,734. Examples from just the first page of results: 1 ("civic leader ... whose hand helped shape the government of San Francisco for nearly half a century"); 2 ("for many years prominent in public affairs in the Bay area"); 3 ("eminent author on history of San Francisco"); 4; 5. Surely, Graywalls, that counts as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? --Usernameunique (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique:, His FATHER is also named Lewis Byington and the father is in National Cyclopædia of American Biography. Is your search result specific to the article's subject and not his father? The hits attributed to his father that do not involve the son do not count. I searched before nominating and I had Netherzone look over a well it didn't seem like the son met GNG. Graywalls (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, his father is named Robert Lewis Byington—those 2,734 hits for "Lewis F. Byington" would not refer to the father (and clearly don't, as the examples above demonstrate). By the way, I didn't get your ping, and Netherzone probably didn't either—you need to sign your comment with the ping to make make the ping work. Repinging Netherzone to be sure. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO, for inclusion in a dictionary of national biography, as well as numerous other sources.Closing admin should discount Greghenderson's !vote as he has a history of using Wikipedia to promote his family, to put it plainly. Possibly (talk)

@Possibly: - Take a closer look at the entry in the The National Cyclopædia of American Biography, it is for his father, also named Lewis Byington, not for this Lewis Francis Byington, the son. The entry simply lists LFB as one of his father's children. It's smoke and mirrors and puffery, similar to many of the Henderson family and extended family articles. Netherzone (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: you are correct! I have struck my k !vote, and since that source was the one that tipped my opinion, I will go d. Possibly (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, your initial reason for keeping the article mentioned the dictionary of national biography "as well as numerous other sources". He might not be in a dictionary of national biography after all, but what about those other sources (some 3,000, it appears)? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: Just as I did, I think you may have confused the two Byingtons. Also, there aren't 3000 sources: that is a number generated by the search engine that reflects the number of results, whether they are related or not. For example, I just googled my real name and got "About 361,000 results". Similarly, "purple rabbit doorknob" returns "About 3,290,000 results"; "purple rabbit door knob cheesecake party live video stream" returns about 2.9 million results. Those numbers mean very little other than the number of "possibly" related results.Possibly (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, they don't share the same middle name (or initial), so the 2,734 newspaper.com hits for "Lewis F. Byington" could only mean the subject of this article. That's a lot to comb through, but the five I pointed to above were all on point. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about Google. You cannot take the "3000 results" to mean anything relevant for notability purposes as a name check will give you a result. I just tried "Lewis F. Byington" as a quoted phrase in Google and it says "3020 results, but then only gives 88 results over eight pages. The very large majority of the results are namechecks. The longer ones are wiki pages copied from here. Possibly (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, Possibly. I would expect the reason the Google hits are so low is because they predominantly reflect sources created in the last 20 years or so. For someone by Byington, who died half a century before he could benefit from the internet, a newspapers.com search will generally give far more results. (And other than false positives, it doesn't have the same issue Google has, where '300,000 results' all of a sudden becomes 100 without any explanation.) --Usernameunique (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I never knew Lewis F. Byington and he is not part of my immediate family. If you search for "Lewis F. Byington" on Newspaper.com you get 2,607 matches. California itself has 2,435 matches. When you open each match there is information about Byington from 1887 to 2000. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is part of a semi-walled garden of articles you created on your family and extended family geneaology per: [6] and [7] and others that all lead to Greg Henderson. But aside from that I'm not entirely convinced of his notability esp. given the exaggeration that exists/existed in many of these articles. I'm willing to change my !vote if there is enough convincing evidence to prove that he was truly exceptional in relation to the thousands of other minor politians of his time. Right now there is not. Netherzone (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have written over 100 articles and now have moved on to write about the Northeastern U. S. Pilot Boats. I really enjoy Wikipedia! With the Lewis F. Byington article, written back in 2007, I was attempting to highlight the fact that he was elected District Attorney and Supervisor of San Francisco, California, and to show notability based on the fact that he had received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. --Greg Henderson (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the extensive research of Usernameunique ~~Delete~~ - These ancestry/geneaological articles on this extended family are WP:COI and considerably puffed up per WP:PUFF. This individual was a minor local politician, and does not meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN; local district attorneys do not get a free pass. Not even state or national DA's get a free pass. I'm even a bit skeptical about the obits, as prominant families often submit them to newspapers to keep the family name in the public eye. ~~Does not meet WP:BASIC nor WP:GNG.~~ He was born into a prominant family, held some jobs, had some hobbies, joined some clubs, he died. WP:MILL. None of his positions were notable, it's puffery. Regarding being in the library of congress, that's puffery.....even I'm in the freaking LOC! It's no big deal. Netherzone (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at WP:POLITICIAN (bullet #1) Byington was a members of the California legislative body; (bullet #2) He was a major local political figures who have received significant press coverage as seen is list of primary sources. --Greg Henderson (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind the following sources that prove WP:BASIC and WP:RS:

Encyclopedia of American biography, page 240: Lewis F. Byington's six years as district attorney marked him as a leader among his fellow-citizens.
History of the bench and bar of Nevada, page 247 During his office he prosecuted and secured conviction of many of the most important criminal cases in the history of San Francisco.
San Francisco; a brief biographical sketch of some of the most Prominent Men, page 46 Mr. Byington's brilliant record, on the Board of Supervisors, which lead to his being tendered the nomination for District Attorney in 1899.
Byington wrote several books about history and gave speeches to California Historical Society, e.g. quarterly. v.3-4 1924-25. Early Mining Days in Sierra County.
San Francisco County Biographies History of the San Francisco Bay Region, volume= 3, page 332.
California Review by Henry F. Pernau, page 5 Lewis F. Byington, Grand President of the Native Sons of the Golden West.
Men who made San Francisco, page 124 He has secured the greatest number of convictions of any district attorney in the history of SF.
I encourage other editors to work on the article too, standardizing the format or copy-editing or adding content. --Greg Henderson (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, per source #1 above, he has a two-page spread in the Encyclopedia of American Biography—and no, it's not his dad! I bring this up, as your rationale to keep or delete the article depends on "inclusion in a dictionary of national biography". --Usernameunique (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having again read through this and looked at sources on Lewis F. Byington, I think his case for notability can be summarized as follows. Likewise, I've summarized the arguments against notability made thus far, and added my thoughts on them.

The case for notability:

He meets the third notability criterion for any biography, as he "has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication" (link)
Being district attorney of San Francisco, in and of itself, likely meets the notability standards for politicians, where "precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London." No surprise, then, that 12 of the 14 San Francisco district attorneys since 1900 have Wikipedia articles. Ditto for Philadelphia; Los Angeles; Boston; Denver; Seattle; and Pittsburgh. (Undoubtedly others too, but these were the easiest to find lists of on Wikipedia.)
He has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", meeting the basic criteria for notability of a person.
He has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", meeting the general notability guideline.

The sources referred to in #3 and #4 are not mere mentions stitched together into a narrative; they are thousands of articles, frequently in the headlines and on the front pages of newspapers, that span decades, and every aspect of Byington's life and career. The following selection does not even scratch the surface of the nearly 3,000 articles that appear on newspapers.com for a search of "Lewis F. Byington": 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31.

The case against notability:

Byington does not appear in The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography (per Graywalls, Possibly, & Netherzone). But Byington has two pages to himself in the Encyclopedia of American Biography—the exact same thing, as far as the notability standards for biographies are concerned.
Searches for "Lewis Byington" are turning up mishits for Lewis F. Byington's father, Robert Lewis Byington (per Netherzone). This simply isn't true. There are thousands of results for "Lewis F. Byington"—the "F." being a middle initial not shared with his father—and as the selection above shows, they are about Lewis Francis Byington, not his father.
Byington is "Maybe slightly more notable than common citizen of the time", while "Every elected district attorney tends to get some coverage" (per Graywalls). That's like saying Cy Vance is "slightly more notable" than the average New Yorker—it just doesn't pass the straight-face test. Meanwhile, Byington appears in thousands of articles, hardly just "some coverage". And only 10% (274 of 2,769) newspaper.com hits for "Lewis F. Byington" are from 1900 to 1905—his tenure as DA—showing a prolonged period of relevance.
"None of his positions were notable" (per Netherzone). But as discussed above, the DA position almost certainly is. And even if the others weren't (or so I assume without reading into them), Byington's notability rests primarily on the sources about him, not his positions.
The article is a puffed-up COI piece (per Possibly and Netherzone). Sure, the COI is a reason to look critically at Greghenderson2006's takes. But it's not a reason to delete an article on an otherwise notable subject.

--Usernameunique (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll leave it to other editors more familiar with these sources to chime in on "similar" with regard to "has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication". I'm not familiar enough with the particular source in question but did notice there's over a 100 fold difference in page views of the page for Encyclopedia of American Biography vs Dictionary of National Biography. It's not just about view counts but keywords like national, international and American can be misleading as similar names don't have to mean similar. Graywalls (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His death had a long write up they wouldn't do with just anyone. Other evidence found showing his notability. [8] and second page continued at [9]. Dream Focus 19:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- easily passes both WP:NPOL and my standards for lawyers. He was on the governing body of a world-class city-county and DA of a huge, crime-filled city-county. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darrien Wright[edit]

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

Can’t find anything that suggests notability, fails WP:GNG Devoke water 22:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Devoke water 22:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Devoke water 22:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Devoke water 22:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Devoke water 22:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG after a search of google, gnews, and a review at jstor. Mazurkevin (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable dance show competitor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Make Me Laugh#The hosts. WP:ATD, consensus exists to remove the article below, this will do as an alternative as proposed. Daniel (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Cohen (comedian)[edit]

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

I'll just repeat what the previous AFD stated. This comedian has had no major roles and the only reference is to an IMDb profile. I do not think this article will get any better. I tried to BLPPROD it but found it had been taken to AFD four years ago so I'll try it a second time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An IMDB reference isn't enough to establish notability, but it is enough to make WP:BLPPROD inapplicable. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:NACTOR - while he's had some guest roles and even hosted one special, that's not enough. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Make Me Laugh#The_hosts as that appears to be what he is best know for. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus towards keeping the article at this time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red fascism[edit]

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

The page is focused on a term which is a WP:CFORK from this section. It does not add anything other than being truly a shortlist of people (scholastic or not) who have used the term as well vis-à-vis citations, stripping all the context in this article, producing thus IMO a WP:POVFORK article. BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, can't speak of whether it's a WP:CFORK or not but it does seem like there are several sources which speak of a "Red Fascism" using that specific phrase. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies.--22:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page which the nominator prefers is too large per WP:SIZESPLIT and so some sub-division is reasonable per WP:SPINOFF. The page in question is focussed on a concept which is notable by that title, being the specific topic of papers such as this. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article clearly meets GNG, well sourced term. This editor has been POV pushing to remove content they don't agree with and this is part of that pattern. They are now attempting to use AfD to push their POV. There is currently an ANI about their POV pushing to removed negative information about communism and insert positive information about communism. // Timothy :: talk 19:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well defined separate topic. And the page can be actually expanded. For example, Aleksandr Dugin in his article, "Fascism – Borderless and Red", proclaimed the arrival of a "genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism" in Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Very clear consensus in favour of article deletion at this time with no dissenting opinions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Westner[edit]

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

BLP of an unelected politician relying mostly on affiliated sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being spokesperson for the youth wing of a political party is not a role that constitutes an "inherent" notability pass under WP:NPOL, and this article is far too dependent on directly affiliated primary sources, with little or no reliable source coverage about her in media being shown, to claim that she would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable party functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd ⑊ SPEAK 20:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:TOOSOON. An appointed parity functionary rarely passes AfD. We've had literally dozens of such stubs deleted, from Canada, Scotland, and India. She is early on in her political career. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devoke water 04:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul McGilvray[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WP:BEFORE search didn't show sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two supporting roles is not enough for WP:NACTOR. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest Marvels of All Time[edit]

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

Zero secondary sources to demonstrate notability, and no inline citations at all. Of the two sources in the References section, both are primary sources from the subject's publisher, Marvel Comics itself, neither is an inline citation, only one is an online link, and it's the archived version of a dead link. Nightscream (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nightscream (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The second "reference" doesn't even mention this list. Fun fact: The first two articles I ever wrote were lists like this one, way back in the mists of time. They were promptly deleted, so far my only outright article deletions. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the article never moved beyond a list, and someone's modified the chart positions on at least 2 items, maybe others (I know Amazing Fantasy was #1, and the list now says it's #11). Also this is just comics minutia and the same list is probably available on multiple fan sites, if there is even still interest 20 years later. Salamurai (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wizard covered this from the announcement of fan voting through publication and retailer response (the top 5 or 10 were reprinted as stapled pamphlets, and retailers weren't told which books won so they had to order blind. They didn't like that.). Those articles alone are enough to bulk up the article. I'm sure Comics Buyer's Guide covered it as well, although I don't have access to copies from that timeframe. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even sure what the list is supposed to accomplish? Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SNOW keep. There is no way a consensus to delete will develop here so I am closing it. Those who are in favor of deletion, perhaps reconsider the nomination in a year or so, when we have the time distance to look at it. Tone 14:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 328[edit]

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

Aviation incident in which a plane landed safely with a burned-out engine. This is a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, it has news coverage, but not everything that gets news coverage needs a Wikipedia article, especially given that engine failures are routine incidents. This merits a mention in the aircraft and/or airport article at most. Sandstein 21:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 21:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: should we make an article on every uncontained engine failure? Wikipedia would be full of pages like this.--Paolo9999 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AIRCRASH. An uncontained engine failure isn't actually supposed to happen (the nacelle needs to contain the debris) and is easily "serious damage to the aircraft". --LaserLegs (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A serious incident. Glad that thanks to actions of all those involved, everyone is safe and good. But, not often that you have engine debris drop from the sky. Ktin (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this does get deleted, the pagename should remain as a redirect either to the engine article or to the airline article, and the list of incidents and accidents therein, since it's a significant engine failure for the engine itself. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete uncontained engine failures happen and crew around the world just follow checklists to deal with them. That's what happened here, plus some cool photos on social media of bits of junk on the ground. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now the aircraft type has been grounded. That makes it notable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, same goes for hi-jackings, dual engine fires, hydraulics, cabin fires, surges, and practically every other emergency. We just follow checklists, and deal with them. ThatIPEditor (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"hi-jackings"? Is that like "high fivings"? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh if Wikinews were a relevant project, this might be better suited for that site. We have more stand-alone articles on aeronautical incidents than are needed, some (such as this one) are really just run-of-the-mill news. However, I don't see a good merge target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it be the engine article? Since that's the failure, and it's a big failure on the engine itself -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It would also be a significant incident for Broomfield, Colorado. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree, should be added to Broomfield, Colorado. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh, Good Lord... The nacelle didn't fall off the wing, but an uncontrolled turbine failure in our day and age is certainly notable. (Full disclosure: I began the article.) kencf0618 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is not kept/kept as a redirect, it is already listed at List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft#2021. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect coverage for this kind of event. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably also be mentioned at Pratt & Whitney PW4000, whatever the outcome here. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uncontained engine failure and resulted in grounding of Japanese 777s; we'll have to wait to see if the NTSB recommends changes but that will be a ways down the road. Alpacaaviator (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA is orderering increased inspections and trying to get other countries to do the same.^[1] This shouldn't be up for discussion at this point.Alpacaaviator (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, albeit impressive looking damage to the nacelle, and concluded by a perfectly uneventful single engine flight back to the airport and safe landing. From an aircraft safety PoV, it's a minor incident. Btw, by all appearances, the failure was well contained. An "uncontained failure" is a very specific type of failure which implies a breach of the engine case, which is clearly not the case here. Arugia (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:AIRCRASH, as noted above. An uncontrolled engine failure with pieces of the engine falling out of the sky is a serious accident. There will be an in-depth investigation and follow-up coverage, we can be certain of that. Not a WP:NOTNEWS situation. Nsk92 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is based upon a vague wave at WP:NOTNEWS. What that policy actually says is "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". The incident in question was not routine; it is in the news for the opposite reason – because it was quite dangerous, dramatic and unusual. For an example of routine news about sports and celebrities, see In the News which currently leads on the main page with Djokovic winning a tennis tournament – a very routine occurrence, as he's won that event 8 times before. This demonstrates that the policy is a dead letter and so it's the policy which should be deleted. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Too soon (delete or redirect)~~ Per me previous comment above for the target. But this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Planes have engine failures semi-routinely (if, luckily, rarely), and while sure it's in the news (cause we don't have a madman US president doing crazy things, so of course got to fill it with something else), unless this brings about some form of lasting impact (as in serious safety recommendations from a report) beyond dramatic and unusual pictures, there's no reason to have an article about it yet. Hell, even if the NTSB do launch an investigation there's no reason to have an article, there's plenty of routine incidents that get investigated that we don't have articles on. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ok, notwithstanding issues of sensationalism, now that there's been groundings etc., this is unlikely to just die out of the news cycle right away. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That there are plenty of notable accidents that don't currently have articles is not a reason to delete this one. It is a reason to create articles for those other accidents. Lasting impact into the ages is not required for notability. We just need significant coverage by independent sources that is not transient, and doesn't disappear after a few days. In this case the rarity and the unusual nature of this particular accident make such vanishing coverage rather unlikely. In such situations rather than deleting the article now the correct approach is to wait and revisit the matter in six months or so. If the coverage has disappeared by then, the article can be re-nominated for AfD. But it is alwats easier to destroy than to build, and we are supposed to be in the buiseness of building the encyclopedia. Nsk92 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has resulted in the grounding of planes with these engines in two countries. Brad (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jim Hall former National Transportation Safety Board Chairman commented on the incident on 21 February, suggesting problems at the FAA - see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/20/passenger-plane-drops-debris-denver-suburbs-lands-safely - Three airlines have taken Boeing 777s out of service after FAA issued an emergency order - see https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/22/boeing-777-grounded-by-airlines-after-faa-japan-issues-emergency-order 81.131.132.226 (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason for deletion, it is relevant and is well known enough to be a stand alone article BigRed606 (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon (delete or redirect) as per User:RandomCanadian. Keeping it because something may eventually come out of this is WP:SPECULATION. To put this event in perspective, there was incredibly the exact same event (but not same plane) this very same day in the Netherlands with injuries on the ground ([10]), but no article. This just shows you how this article is merely a news copy, hence WP:NOTNEWS IMO. Sufficiently covered at List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft#2021 and Denver International Airport. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew, Brad PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a highly unusual and notable event. Yes, engine failures happen all the time, but not ones that rain large pieces of debris onto neighborhoods. This event has already resulted in regulatory groundings of dozens of aircraft, and the full implications of the event are not yet known. To say this event is not even notable is pretty silly. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't remotely mean or say what some have suggested that it does. In fact, it specifically says "Editors are encouraged... to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". That's what this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.130.121 (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Hard to say, it's only been one day since this has happened. But virtually every news story I've read has explicitly said that this kind of failure is rare -- in other words, it isn't speculation and it isn't original research to say so. It seems that broader developments have started to happen as of a couple hours ago (example: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/22/united-engine-failure-faa-orders-inspections-pratt-whitney-engines.html), and I suspect there will be more tomorrow since it's no longer the weekend and news organizations will have staff.

I also strongly echo Andrew about the misuse of WP:NOTNEWS. If almost every piece of coverage talks about how rare this kind of event is, then it doesn't count as routine. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, especially given the breaking news that some planes will be grounded Johndavies837 (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As others have said, rare event. Side note, if the aftermath (such as the grounding of the other 777s) becomes the bigger story, it would be good to rename/restructure the article. Sewageboy (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of people saying "delete" are seemingly implying that because this incident may be mundane from a disaster perspective that somehow means it doesn't meet notability. Which, even if that were true, doesn't seem consistent with what is currently seen as notable on Wikipedia -- there's a lot of articles documenting flights that didn't end in total fire and carnage. If articles like this one about unruly passengers can exist and be featured on the home page, I don't see why an engine exploding can't. 68.117.55.155 (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First of all, this event has gotten quite a lot of media attention. Second, these types of catastrophic engine failures are pretty rare. Third, the engine used on this flight (a Pratt & Whitney PW4000) has had a history of catastrophic engine failures (see Korean Air Flight 2708 for example). Due to the problems with this particular engine, there is likely going to be some major developments with the engine type. These three things show that this is a noteworthy article and should be kept on the site. Southwest Fan 101 (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A030:A870:C04A:599B:EC3F:D8F0 (talk) [reply]
Keep. This article has just become highly-notable, just look at this BBC story with very rare footage of a fiery jet turbine shot from the cabin in mid-filght. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 05:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this has prompted an airworthiness directive and also action from international regulators, notably Japan ([11]). This is obviously an AfD on fast-shifting information but the keep !votes are increasing in frequency. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep, because that although that single engine failed is common, we do not usually consider this "routine", and it is still a incident. But this one is a commercial scheduled flight, making it not "routine". Might need some parts deleted because that they aren't reliable sources, but, I think it is best to keep. ThatIPEditor (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not a routine engine failure but a widely reported incident that saw debris shed over a populated area. Planes grounded, and some chance that these aircraft (old 777s powered by P&W engines) will be withdrawn from service altogether as a result. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 06:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Uncontained failures in modern jet engines are rare, something like one per million flights. This one caused large chunks of engine to rain down on a populated area, which I would guess is even more rare. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "engine failures are routine incidents" - maybe, but not for those inflight at the time. Easily passes WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable & its v handy to have a Wiki page as a collated set of Reliable Sources on this. NBeale (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (edit conflict) This is not just a regular engine failure. Shit literally fell out of the sky Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 07:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large amounts of national media coverage for multiple days in a row. Even if mid-flight engine failures are common (which I'm not entirely convinced they are), the fact that large amounts of debris were strewn across a neighborhood makes this much more notable than if it were just an engine failure. I'd also draw a comparison to Delta Air Lines Flight 89, which does have an article. Mlb96 (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the event led to a grounding of B777s, which means that the notability threshold has been passed. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Self-evidently an unusual occurrence. Subsequent edit: However, lightning does indeed strike twice and it will be interesting to see if Flight 5504 gets its own page too . . . Ericoides (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not an usual engine failure given almost all the engine disappeared in flight. Wykx (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Small fires in engines are not routine and occur more often than most people actually know, however nacelle being ripped apart is rare, as media coverage has described. As per Andrews argument people are not reading WP:Notnews properly.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it landed safely doesn't mean an incident isn't notable, especially when a foreign country decides to ground the type in response and, as several others point out, media coverage is pointing out how rare it is for this to happen. Also, that wasn't merely a burned-out engine, as you describe. That was a flaming wreck. ThroningErmine8 (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When was the last time you saw debris falling from an airplane during a flight? Other airplanes using the same engine were already grounded. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 12:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Er, two days ago. Ericoides (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AIRCRASH--Kemalcan (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:AIRCRASH and too soon. ...After the final FAA investigation report is published then reopen this rfd AND that would possibly be the best time to sort out this issue! --:GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴^⍨talk 13:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/21/business/faa-boeing-777-engines.html

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Very clear consensus in favour of article deletion at this time with no dissenting opinions. Given this and that the discussion has ran its full 7-day course, I am going to go ahead and close this in favour of deletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Premtosh Nath[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL; did stand for election in Sabroom in 2008 but was not successful. He has not received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator's reasoning. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly fails both NPOL and GNG JW 1961 Talk 20:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, but nothing here even tries to suggest that he has any preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, and by some margin. The creator is a new editor (so says their user page) and probably needs a bit of guidance and latitude, so I could live with draftifying if there are proper sources available that just haven't been added (although I doubt it). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls well short of both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. --Devoke water 10:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Idubor[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN as she does not have any notable accolades, nor have any of her works charted anywhere nor is she regarded as significant in her field. She also does not meet WP:NACTOR as she has not starred in multiple notable productions. She also does not meet WP:GNG as she does not have significant coverage in reliable published sources. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search shows notability.

The sources cited in the article are promotional press releases and two of them are rehashings of each other. Literally just copy and paste. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puff-piece, notability not established. Oaktree b (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. This article has all the tale signs of UPE also. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @Spiderone & @Oaktree b you guys really wanna know what’s sad & funny at the same time? I did a little investigating of my own and I discovered that the only two sources which are closest to reliable(but aren’t in this context) are this & this which are both undoubtedly paid for. The former was published on February 19th(two days ago) & the latter, on the 15th(six days ago) then the Wikipedia article on her was created today(February 21) two days after this publication so if I were to make an educated guess I’d say she decided to have a Wikipedia presence(to boost her notability status & whatnot) then proceeded to pay the aforementioned sources for articles on her, then unfortunately for her and fortunately for us, she decided to employ the services of (in my opinion), arguably one of the most incompetent,inexperienced, & clueless UPE editors in Nigeria. And all this stress for what? only for the article to end up at AFD where it would be thrashed & all that money wasted. It’s like I said earlier, funny & sad at the same time. Celestina007 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 - is there really that much money involved in having a Wikipedia article? I've seen several people go through great lengths, even in just the past week, to have their vanity/COI articles published here. Surely that time is better spent actually trying to be notable or significant so as to qualify for one? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone, in Nigeria, from what my informants tell me, UPE is really big buck$ amongst the UPE ring in Nigeria who charge as high as $150 for biographical articles & $300 for an article on an organization & those UPE editors also collect from those client of theirs every month what they term “Article maintenance fee”(you know, the Orangemoody modus operandi, which is just blatant extortion & blackmail) I just feel sad for her because as you rightfully said if the subject dedicates more time in actually being or achieving true notability they wouldn’t have to spend a dime for a biographical piece on her. It’s sad really. Celestina007 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just to pile it on, she has no media presence beyond the obvious paid sources as described by my colleagues above. I also found that while the article claims that she has been in 22 films, IMDb and similar services only list her in two films, and there is clearly no shortage of info on Nollywood in that realm. Her music releases have not risen beyond the same paid sources, and they don't seem to be very effective. Her eponymous foundation is also only present in its own social media self-promotions. I sure hope she's not claiming to be a philanthropist to further her career. And if she really is a philanthropist, that is a far better use of her time and money. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to nominate this myself. Agree with everything said above. This is an advert pretending to be an encyclopaedia article, and the timing and repeated recreations strongly suggest an attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform for raising the subject's prominence. I too suspect UPE. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone how can I add the paid can you help me add it to the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentuzoma (talk • contribs) 03:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Innocentuzoma - Please follow Template:Paid Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Idubor Article has been Declared Paid at the talk page section Please sir can you release the article thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentuzoma (talk • contribs) 09:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not until sources are provided that establish notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VANITY. ——Serial 11:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page of a non-notable individual. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Innocentuzoma - have you managed to find any more sources to establish notability? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancharakalyanam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Prod was removed, because there is a mentioning of the movie as "Shiyas' films include Mayavi, Onnaman, Dubai, Junior Mandrake, Amar Akbar Anthony, Ancharakalyanam etc." [12]. I personally don't see how it passes as a "significant" mentioning. Thank you, Kolma8 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned the prod was removed as the film is mentioned in Shiyas' obituary as above. Kolma8 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. A mere mention in an obituary is not enough to establish notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rough consensus in favour of deletion. Closing as such at this time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T3ddy[edit]

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

A WP:COI borderline A7 eligible article on a non notable “digital influencer, Youtuber and actor” who doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria nor does he satisfy WP:ENT. A before search turns up hits in unreliable user generated sources. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources given to provide notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. I can see no evidence of notability, probably should be speedied. --Ashley yoursmile! 17:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article was A7'd by admin after this AfD was posted. (non-admin closure) ser! (chat to me). 00:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pranab kr nath[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR Jenyire2 19:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 19:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - badly fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR; borderline A7 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability can be established to satisfy WP:RLN. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hayden[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG Jenyire2 19:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 19:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guy played 27 first grade games in the NRL. Surely that's enough to pass WP:SPORTSPERSON and WP:GNG. 19:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:24B7:4000:5D76:5EA4:994A:22E8 (talk)
Keep - Passes WP:RLN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly meets WP:RLN. Have also added another IRS. Cabrils (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:RLN. @Johnpacklambert: perhaps you need to reconsider your !vote? Deus et lex (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Mersin İdmanyurdu season[edit]

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

Was a contested PROD a few years back as it was claimed that this season passes GNG.

I think that this is a very similar case to 2007–08 Mersin İdmanyurdu season's AfD, where there was a clear delete consensus. None of the sources in the article establish notability as the article is almost entirely sourced to the Turkish FA website, which provides bare minimum stats reporting only and no WP:SIGCOV. This league is second tier and not in a professional league so does not gain any presumed notability through WP:NSEASONS. Searching for match reports, I found this and this, which are both typical of the low depth of coverage that this level of football seems to receive. I can't see how this meets our inclusion criteria for seasons. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oleander (former town), California[edit]

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

Taking this one to AFD rather than PROD, as it's hard to conduct a WP:BEFORE as Oleander, California (a separate place) is in the same county and is causing a lot of unavoidable search engine noise. There's no GNIS entry for this Oleander, and there's nothing on the topographic maps suggesting that there was a community at this location. Neither Oleander is in Gudde's place names book. This just doesn't seem to be a notable location. Hog Farm _Talk 19:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 19:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a mislocated Oleander, California, which is clearly located on the railroad four miles directly south of where the AT&SF Railroad crosses the Southern Pacific at Calwa, California. This is shown on maps and confirmed in descriptions such as this which has it 7 miles SE of Fresno and 3 miles from Fowler. It's inconceivable that there would be another station of the same name just 10 miles away near Selma at the site of Wineland, California which served a different settlement.--Pontificalibus 08:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do you believe that the source is in error, or that it's been misinterpreted, or that the source is correct but that it isn't sufficient for notability, or something else? I'm leaning toward #1 but I'm not sure. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nyttend: - Quite possibly all three. I've had quite a bit of experience with the Durham source as part of the cleanup, and most of the time, I've seen several issues. As to #1, the source has sometimes been found to include errors - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sykes, California, where Durham was found to have erroneously introduced the name of "Skyes, California" as a separate place when it was just an error for Sykes. For #2, see User talk:Carlossuarez46#Please don't create any more articles where the source was tracked down and it was discovered that the claims of communities in most of these articles were not supported by the source and were basically fabricated. Lastly, the results of hundreds of AFDs and PRODs for places from Durham have held that a simply listing in there is not enough for notability. So yeah, the Durham citation is basically useless here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the details. BTW, I meant "I think you're meaning #1 but I'm not sure". I have no opinion on any of them, since I've not looked at any of them. Nyttend (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete as some sort of mistake. There is no SF line in the area where this supposedly was, nor any other rail line, so this fails verification. Mangoe (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denzil Connick[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SOLDIER is an essay with no official standing or consensus support. The nomination's claim that the subject does not pass the WP:GNG is false. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep fails WP:SOLDIER but the aggregate coverage of him probably amounts to SIGCOV in multiple RS sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Weak as I am AGFing User:Mztourist's argument that there is some coverage. Sadly, I am not seeing it. Could you link to the best examples? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GNG is not satisfied. Sparse, weak media coverage, e.g. Blackwood Armed Forces veteran's 26 years helping others like him in a newspaper with a indeterminate subscription base, Denzil Connick remembers meeting Baroness Thatcher, from the BBC, but an interview and more about Thatcher than him. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all noted above. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceren Akkaya[edit]

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

Falling short on both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Sources are reliable but do not provide any significant coverage of the subject. Nothing better found during a WP:BEFORE search. Full source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis - no WP:SIGCOV found but the sources are reliable news sources Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=30&kisiId=1565434	Just a profile page	✘ No
https://www.milliyet.com.tr/yerel-haberler/zonguldak/kdz-eregli-ataturk-ortaokulu-ogrencileri-futsalda-ilk-8-e-kaldi-10147025	Name check	✘ No
https://www.iha.com.tr/antalya-haberleri/salonu-olmayan-okulun-ogrencileri-futsal-turkiye-sampiyonu-oldu-772956/	Brief mention in a local paper; article is about a school futsal tournament	✘ No
http://www.ereglionder.com.tr/guncel/kumede-kalma-basarisi-h72453.html	Trivial mention	✘ No
https://www.kocaeligazetesi.com.tr/haber/1412087/basketbol-maci-degil-futbol-maci-24-0	Just a squad list, no coverage	✘ No
http://www.kdzmeydangazetesi.com/h_12025/konak-belediyespor-1-kdzeregli-belediyespor-0.html	Name check	✘ No
http://www.pusulagazetesi.com.tr/eregli-kazanmayi-hatirladi-112146-haberler.html	Name check	✘ No
http://www.pusulagazetesi.com.tr/eregli-trabzonun-ocagini-sondurdu-91854-haberler.html	Name check	✘ No
https://www.atasehirdegundem.com/spor/atasehir-belediyespor-kadin-futbol-takimi-eregli%E2%80%99den-3-puanla-dondu	No depth of coverage here, just a passing mention in a match report	✘ No
https://www.itvhaber.com/galibiyet-serisi-devam-ediyor-4-2.html	Name check in a squad list	✘ No
https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=29&macId=139815	No coverage to speak of	✘ No
http://www.yeniadimgazetesi.com/diger/ereglili-kizlar-milli-takimda-h33194.html	Name check in an U17 squad announcement	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no significant coverage in reliable sources so we have a failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. --Devoke water 04:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gören Duyan[edit]

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

There are millions of such "stolen and lost items" sites. Delete per WP:WEBCRIT. NMW03 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that there are millions of the same does not affect notability. Turkey's largest platform in the area. There are many news on the subject. An encyclopedic content was created with the resources provided. Noteworthy news are listed on the relevant page: http://gorenduyan.com/basinda-biz --𝘋𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘴 ϟ ^Heyyo? 10:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are millions of different websites all over the Internet yet some are prominent. This website appears to be one of them. The article is also well-sourced. Keivan.f^Talk 03:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedily deleted: this was spam from the get-go, and no one seems to have noticed it was pretty much copied from the company website. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gods Unchained[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:NGAME or WP:GNG. No significant coverage found on google. noq (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ministry of Gender Equality, Child Development and Family Welfare. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Women, Child Development and Family Welfare[edit]

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

article already exists at Ministry of Gender Equality, Child Development and Family Welfare PotentPotables (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: If you follow the link given in the Ministry of Women, Child Development and Family Welfare article, it finds a "page not found" page at the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family Welfare website. This might have been the original source for this; and this document suggests that this and/or Ministry of Women’s Rights, Child Development and Family Welfare is probably a former name for the Mauritian ministry. However, it should not be confused with the Indian Ministry of Women & Child Development. -- The Anome (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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) 16:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Asher[edit]

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

Seems to fail the notability test: a news seach for "James Asher musician" finds nothing relevant, and an ordinary search finds his own website first, and this article after that. The niasounds.com page on him appears to be by a publisher selling his music, so does not qualify as an independent reliable source. -- The Anome (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

District FM[edit]

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

The article is cited only to its own press releases; a WP:BEFORE search finds only articles like this and this, none of which appear to be written by professional journalists and are all thinly-veiled press releases. Fails WP:GNG and the creator has ignored at least 4 warnings about COI/UPE. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A7, possibly G11 Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The station has only just started broadcasting and the article makes no credible claim of notability. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON, and very likely COI editing or UPE based on the determination to get this entry into mainspace (the page has already been moved to draftspace twice only to be recreated each time). SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not COI sir. it has been broadcasting since June 3rd, 2020 it but was a minor spelling. and the page has no motive to enter twice. I'm new to Wikipedia and deleting this post twice after creation felt so frustrating I didn't know about the talk pages. but now I want to become a contributor and would beg for two of my article to be released thanks. I am still searching for an article with notability and would improve the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentuzoma (talk • contribs) 03:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If no reliable, independent sources exist for this station then it isn't notable. That would also explain why its previous incarnations were deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@spiderone i also marked this article paid. can it be release from deletion. while i work to inprove it thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentuzoma (talk • contribs) 10:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion will last for at least 7 days. That should be more than enough time to find sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the cogent arguments made in the nomination, not A7 or G11. Has WP:PAID been adhered to? ——Serial 11:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7 and WP:G11. I draftified this article due to Notability/Promo/COI issues previously. Additionally, the creator of the article had been warned about all of these issues before they, including a COI disclosure request from an admin and a follow-up request from myself and multiple advanced warnings, which they then tried to hide by blanking their talk page. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Internet radio services are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their own self-published websites offer technical verification that they exist — the notability test hinges on journalists analyzing its significance, not just on showing that it exists. But the footnotes here are the station's own website and its press releases, not real journalistic analysis of its importance. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to HMS Defence (1763). Going down with his ship, again. Sandstein 12:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Atkins (Royal Navy officer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be an unlucky, but normal ship captain. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. There's a nice account of them here. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's very clearly not an RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source summarises its extensive bibliography and so seems fine. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HMS Defence (1763) the ship that he captained when it was lost. He lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary for WP:GNG. Coverage is largely WP:1E of the loss of the Defence. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atkins is a blog and the two books you have added aren't visible online. Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They were visible to me. The Clowes/Mahan books is available on line for free in its entirety. It was published in 1900. And even if they aren't visible to you, so what's your point? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that Users can't assess the sources if they can't see what they say. Using another computer I can see a preview of Clowes/Mahan and all it seems to say is "and Defence, Captain David Atkins were ordered to attend her.." which just proves that Atkins was the Captain of the Defence and gives no other details, hardly SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet GNG and just confirms the WP:1E nature and why this should redirect to the ship. Mztourist (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Adkins~~ Bates is both a book Bates, David; Gower, David I. (2017). Champion of the Quarterdeck: Admiral Sir Erasmus Gower (1742-1814). Pomona, Queensland: Sage Old Books. ISBN 9780958702126.Bates, David. "David Atkins biography". Sage Old Books. Retrieved 4 April 2018. and an associated webpage. Not a non-WP:RS blog. You were complaining that you couldn't see the contents of the other books. You get to see a lot of content in this source. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the book's subject is Gower not Atkins who gets listed under "associated people" (because he served under Gower) in what looks like an appendix; is it Significant coverage? Adding more sources to the article that say the same thing, when the thing is just "Atkins was captain of the Defence when it ran aground, and he died" is not SigCov. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. Its not clear that the Atkins information is even contained in the book. Meanwhile 7&6=thirteen you have added a couple more blogs which also aren't RS. Mztourist (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Naval Chronicle is a contemporary journal, (archive.org seems to have many of the volumes (eg here is one of the sailors accounts of the loss of Defence at the end of Vol 28, but I can't find Atkins elsewhere in the that volume, he may be in others.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Google books had Volume 27, January-July 1812 p44 has a brief mention of the loss of the St George and Defence. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update to update Archive.org delivers a better scanned/index of Vol 27 with Atkins appearing in the search but still no bio.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the Article Talk Page the Ian M Bates reference is not a Reliable Source as it is a blog by one of the authors of Champion of the Quarterdeck: Admiral Sir Erasmus Gower (1742-1814) providing information not included in the book and so has not been subject to any editorial review. Mztourist (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A book and an explanatory website are perfectly reliable sources. Lack of a page number is not disqualifying. They should be read in tandem.Bates, David; Gower, David I. (2017). Champion of the Quarterdeck: Admiral Sir Erasmus Gower (1742-1814). Pomona, Queensland: Sage Old Books. ISBN 9780958702126.Atkins, David. "David Atkins biography". Sage Old Books. Retrieved 4 April 2018. Being discussed on the article talk page. I think the sourcing question is independent of this AFD discussion, and I am not suggesting it is outcome determinative at all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying this over from the Talk Page: The book is presumed to be reliable, the website isn't as it hasn't undergone any editorial review even if it was created by one of the book's authors. Ian M. Bates the webpage owner (not David Bates as you claim in the book reference) states "My draft manuscript contained an Appendix running to over 25,000 words, revealing many little-known facts about Gower's associates. This was considered too long for publication but it referred to numerous officers whose later careers showed Gower's influence and support. As the lives of many of these officers are little known today, rather than delete this data, I offer it here for the benefit of readers of the book and for the wider naval history community." So no editorial review, so its just a blog and cannot be regarded as a Reliable Source. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (I'd say merge too - if there was anything to merge) to HMS Defence. I'm not seeing "Significant coverage" and as WP:STUB says "If a stub has little verifiable information...it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article.". I'd say this was pretty close to "Delete"- what is he known for apart from losing a ship and nigh on 600 crew - but I'm feeling generous today. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HMS Defence, per GraemeLeggett the cited sources completely lack SIGCOV. Cavalryman (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to HMS Defence as Atkins lacks SIGCOV on his own. Intothat darkness 16:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information - I think standing consensus is that an established expert (such as an author with a peer-reviewed published book) can have their self-published (i.e. blog) material in the related field treated as reliable. Niehorster's website is often used for Yugoslav ships in this way. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, having assumed it's reliable as a source, would you say it counts as a second different piece of coverage that counts towards the SIGCOV threshold or lump it together as something like an e-version of the book , or appendix to the book? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider it a companion to the book for notability purposes. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is not what it was when nominated for deletion. WP:HEY. WP:GNG. WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article's content comes from just one source, the only thing that is well sourced - for some reason with six citations - is him dying when the Defence goes aground. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed all the detail now comes from Bates' webpage, while the one event that he is known for is extensively sourced. Still fails GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

River Link[edit]

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

No evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources (that are not of limited interest or local) - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP passes GNG.Djflem (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP is the standard for companies not GNG. SK2242 (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaori Oinuma[edit]

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

BLP of a Japanese-Filipina model who came eighth in a Big Brother series and has done some other early-career stuff, none of which looks notable to me. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references are insufficient to meet GNG. This is really a case of WP:TOOSOON for this starlet. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a good possibility, since she did get some media attention and is mentioned in the Pinoy Big Brother: Otso article. I also would accept deletion per arguments of nominator. Polyglot Researcher (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a few more reliable sources in the article. Her TV roles seem significant, including 3 main TV roles. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes NACTOR as she has multiple significant roles. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the above. Also, links to WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The article passes both. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 17:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article must have many information including on about her early life before her stardom in Philippine showbiz. Jayjay2020 (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see more refs have been added but they’re all just passing mentions of her name in cast lists. Where is the in-depth coverage in multiple sources? She’s verifiably an actress and appeared on Big Brother. That’s really all we’ve got. Mccapra (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow scrutiny of sources added since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She received significant coverage from at least three different secondary sources: Manila Standart, ABS and Cand Mag. I have doubts about her relevance in PBB: Otso, but I have no doubts that the article meets WP: GNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is notable. She has played main roles in multiple films and television series, so meets WP:NACTOR and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ICI Homes[edit]

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

Promotional article, does not meet WP:NCORP ("largest homebuilder and the 4th largest family-owned business in Volusia County" is not grounds for notability). MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NCORP is irrelevant if WP:GNG is otherwise satisfied, and while it's marginal, I believe there's just enough here to demonstrate that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG criterion for inclusion in encyclopedia as shown by WP:BEFORE. Luciapop (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Weiss, Ray (2005-05-06). "ICI Homes rises in ranks". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  The article notes: "Like a college football team rising in the polls, ICI Homes continues to climb in an annual ranking of the nation's top home builders. Builder magazine's May issue, published Wednesday, ranks the locally headquartered company 57th on this year's Top 100 list, up from 76th last year. Started by Mori Hosseini in 1980, ICI has been a fixture on Builder's list since 1998. This was the company's best showing."
2. Brumley, Cecil G. (1997-12-28). "King of the Hill - Intervest Still Growing". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  The article includes analysis from Susan Little, an analyst with Raymond James & Co. in St. Petersburg. The article notes, "ICI is headed in the right direction if it wants to become a public company, she said, though. 'I have a tendency to like home builders who have some geographic diversity. If you have a downturn in one market, you have the opportunity to grow in other markets,'" Little said.
3. Horton, Jennifer (2018-12-01). "Craftsmanship, customer service key to ICI Homes". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  The article notes: "With headquarters in Daytona Beach, ICI Homes has built more than 10,000 homes in more than 100 communities throughout Florida, Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina."
4. Wyatt, Dustin (2014-12-14). "At the center of it all: Mori Hosseini's influence in Volusia, Florida stretches far". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  The article notes: "As chairman and CEO of ICI Homes — consistently ranked by Builder Magazine among the nation's Top 100 homebuilders and the area's biggest — he's made a fortune."
5. "Coalition honors ICI Homes chairman". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. 2006-05-12. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  The article notes: "Hosseini's company, ICI Homes, which he founded in 1980, is the 47th largest homebuilder in the nation."
6. Ashley, Taylor (2003-07-16). "ICI Homes climbs to new heights - Local builder continues growing". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  The article notes: "ICI builds everything from townhouses to production houses to luxury custom houses. The company reported sales of 767 houses in 2002 and gross revenue of $218 million. It builds in central and northeastern Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee."
7. Park, Clayton (2017-11-01). "ICI Homes to offer 'alternative' to Margaritaville in Daytona". The Florida Times-Union. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
8. Anderson, Danielle (2020-05-09). "ICI Homes celebrates 40 years". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07 – via NewsMemory.
9. Brumley, Cecil G. (2000-02-13). "Marketing Might ICI Flexing Its Muscles". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ICI Homes to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To scrutinize and discuss credibility of sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is enough analysis in the sources above to justify a keeping of the article and a passing of WP:NCORP; for example #3 and #6 clearly address the company directly and the analysis contains enough depth Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appears notable per above points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bowers Coaches[edit]

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

No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources- fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge>>> Centrebus >>> (50% of High Peak Buses).Djflem (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple mentions in local and industry sources. Lilporchy (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilporchy: Mentions are not good enough. For NCORP there needs to be multiple significant coverage sources, of which at least one should meet WP:AUD requirements. SK2242 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep vote does not assert notability or prove that sources exist. Relist to allow discussion on merge alternative.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Same Difference. Daniel (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PopLife Records[edit]

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

A poorly sourced article on a company that does not appear to pass WP:NCORP. My particular concern is that there is no coverage that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH, which states "Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." Sources cited in the article are inappropriate due to being forum posts, MySpace, blogs and the record label's own website. My WP:BEFORE search yielded only trivial mentions in independent sources and it's telling that this has zero hits on ProQuest.

There is no obvious WP:ATD either since the record label apparently had some connection with three different notable artists so there is not just the one redirect/merge target. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Same Difference. I disagree that the nominator's rationale is the right way to think about this article in particular or label articles in general. (For one thing, if we found something in ProQuest, that'd be quite valuable to notability, but it's not a mark against it if we don't, because ProQuest is not a very good aggregator of publications that would cover this kind of musical endeavor.) However, this label apparently only ever put out three singles and one album, and the bulk of any attention this label ever had or will get will be due to its connection with Same Difference, a legitimately famous charting group. (If it ever had associations with Marit Larsen or Dan Balan, as the article claims, those associations seem never to have amounted to an actual commercial release.) The footnotes in the current article are a wash - three unreliable sources and one that verifies that Same Difference in fact charted, which is covered better in the band's article (though this information could be merged if someone felt so inclined). But the label does not rise to the level of "one of the more important indie labels" suggested by WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a record label is a company so should be held to NCORP in the same way that a book publishing company or film company would be as well. If my interpretation of the guidelines is wrong, please let me know what the correct interpretation is. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's an open difference in opinion about this. I have long held that NCORP makes no sense for judging the importance of labels - it makes as much sense as using CORP to judge the notability of bands (even though bands unquestionably meet the criteria for what CORP covers), which we never do. People interested in music should be the ones creating the criteria for judging the importance of music-related topics, and WP:MUSIC in fact addresses labels, though briefly, and I think its language makes much more sense as a benchmark. Chubbles (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would you say is an effective way of determining whether a label is one of the more important indie labels? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this up from time to time on various talk pages and deletion discussions, for instance, here. Chubbles (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no objection to this being redirected to Same Difference where it is mentioned Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above per WP:ATD, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. No votes concurred with deletion. Discussion regarding whether to rename/move the article can be made outside of this AfD. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Shu Min elitism controversy[edit]

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

This article is an example of WP:BLP1E where the subject has not been notable in the years after the controversy happened. The only wiki page that is linked to this is of her father's, Wee Siew Kim, which is a notable BLP. – robertsky (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wee Siew Kim: Definitely an indication of WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply here. This is an event which was notable and is often cited as an example of elitism. I can find secondary references in academic sources [13], [14],[15],[16], [17], [18]. There are also news articles such as [19], [20], [21]. If I am correct, the article was originally linked from Gifted Education Programme (Singapore) (in a criticism section), but seems like someone has removed the entire section. I understand the BLP implications and I wouldn't mind if the article is renamed to something like "2006 Singapore elitism controversy". However, I don't think the article should be deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss credibility of sources mentioned and whether WP:BLP1E applies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw deletion nom, in light Justanothersgwikieditor's recent addition of a recent reference to this incident in newspaper publication. However, I am in favour of DreamLinker's proposal to renaming to "2006 Singapore elitism controversy". The nomination rationale for this AfD and the previous one is largely BLP1E, and renaming the article would address BLP1E concern to a certain extent. – robertsky (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename : I am in favor of renaming to "2006 Singapore elitism controversy". The new title will be suited and more generic for other articles about elitism / social issues in Singapore. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ann Arbor, Michigan#Education. The "keep" opinions are weak, but the "delete" opinions do not oppose a redirection as a plausible alternative to deletion. Sandstein 12:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Steiner School of Ann Arbor[edit]

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

Page has no reliable independent sources. The sources that exist are either to the school, to associations the school is a part of, or to websites advocating use of the school's techniques - nothing truly reliable and independent.

I tried and failed in trying to find significant coverage of the school online. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Waldorf education. 174.254.192.112 (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Information about one school would probably be undue in that broader article, in my opinion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has a high school. Rmhermen (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Schools aren't inherently notable, though. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ann Arbor, Michigan#Education. The school fails the GNG: all references are either unrelated or not independent. Redirects are cheap, so we might as well redirect it to the town's article, which briefly mentions it. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Up until about 2017 we held that any high school that we could actually verrify existed we would keep an article on. Then we wised up to realize how many high schools there really are, how many have 300 or fewer students tacked on in a K-12 situation, how many are in rural parts of Wyoming where they may have 10 or so students, in a good year, tacked into a school that is K-12, and the high school students are lucky if they ever get out of the same room as their classmates. Also that system was clearly presentists biased. We have since decided that high schools have to at least pass the threshold of having multiple in depth, independent secondary sources about them, although how much the articles have to be about the high school to count has not been fully decided, we have not quite gone to requiring the same level of coverage we require of any other organization, but just demonstating the place exists or existed is no longer in and of itself enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With the previous comment appearing to lean towards deletion and a mixture of other views, consensus is unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it's right on the edge of my standards for schools. If we could get more reliable sources about its team or alumni (plural, not just one), I'd go for a weak keep. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use of unreliable sources by some authors doesn't make this school less notable. This is simply a reason for editors to improve the article with more reliable sources. This school is named for the founder of the global Waldorf School system. It has a unique pedagogy that sets it apart from more conventional schools.--23mason (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Syed Mohammad Baqir Al-Moosavi Al-Najfi[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NBIO and WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable. Rondolinda (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO per nom. Shankargb (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lintoy[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:AntonioMartin with a rationale on talk [22] from which I'll quote "distributed by... major brands... Many websites describe it as a 70's favorite brand". Fair enough, but sadly I still don't see any in-depth coverage that GNG requires, and a few sentences on fan / collector websites like [23] don't seem close to being either reliable or in-depth. Maybe there's some list this could be redirect to (there's no referenced content here to merge right now, however). Disclaimer: I removed a spam-link that was a fake reference (to a commercial website selling some of their products). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - brand was distributed by Ertl, Bachmann Industries and Corgi..it also had many major airlines as customers which included some of the legendary names among airline companies. Keep in mind also they are from the 1970s-1980's, an era when the internet was not as developed as a personal tool. But there are many websites that attest to their notability.Antonio SuperBowl Dude Martin (dime) 08:40, 7 February, 2021 (UTC)
- AntonioMartin, Websites like? Bonus points if your answer explains why they are reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I get the reliability issue, but even if I cannot find reliable sources, being mentioned in a lot of websites, even on Ebay for that matter where you can find many Lintoy being sold, means the brand at least has some notability..and notability is a lot of what Wikipedia is about...I mean if you are notable then you are worth on inclusion, right? Antponio Big Lethal Weapon films fan Martin (que que?) 22:01, 7 February, 2021 (UTC)
    - AntonioMartin, Yes, except notability generally requires being covered in reliable sources. And fan websites or ebay don't meet such criteria. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in sources about such toys such as Die-cast Aircraft, as one would expect. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, Are you talking about this 2018 book? All I see in it is a mention of the topic in the single sentence: "Often the same models are sold in different packaging under several different brand names. This mix of military and civil types carry the names Lintoy, Bachmann/Lintoy and Tomy/Lintoy Sky Tomica. (Vectis Auctions)." I don't think it meets any definition of 'coverage' I am familiar with, instead it's a trivial mention in passing. If there is more please quote relevant passages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources passes the WP:SIGCOV guideline and so is adequate for our purpose. The policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Andrew Davidson, SIGCOV example is "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM." And trivial, "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.". You provided one sentence in a book. Which of the two examples there does your 'contribution' of one sentence represent more closely? A book on the topic or a trivial sentence? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not a matter of size but significance. The book has at least a page showing a range of models and indicating that the company partnered with Bachmann and Tomy. We have articles for both of those and so this makes it clear that there are sensible alternatives to deletion which is policy. As, per WP:NOTCLEANUP, we are not here to perform detailed development of the topic for the nominator's amusement, this will suffice to dismiss the deletion nomination. The nominator has been making numerous nominations for toys lately – a fit of pique inspired by their failure to delete the landspeeder, it seems. Our efforts have to be correspondingly economical per WP:CHOICE which advises us to "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." That's policy too. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To enable further assessment of the sources and a clearer consensus to emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep votes suggest that sources must exist, however notability not clearly established and consensus unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it is to be a redirect it should be List of model aircraft manufacturers. I agree with Andrew that this brand was pre-internet so there is hardly any coverage on the Web that showed gng at the time it operated. There are sources out there but none seem to be SIGCOV, Big Book of Toy Model Aeroplanes by Tom Millar, Collecting Corgi Toys by Mike Richardson, Die-cast Aircraft by Paul Bent Adams, plus quite a fews additions of Model Collector have small articles. They are notable and the planes are highly collectable, (some of their model cars were rubbish I had a Mercedes C111 when I was a kid) and there is lots of chat on model collecting websites. Problem is they come under WP:NCorp which is designed to stop exploitation by current businesses. I have in the past put forward a historical impact/impirtamce policy, much like WP:Basic #2, where small amounts added up to show Notability (in wiki terms) but it didn't get any take up. In the case of this company, they are notable historically as they are collected, but fail our rules. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found this too - https://dinkytvspace.com/113-john-steeds-jaguar-xj12c/. And that they made products for Schuco toys too. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Davidstewartharvey, Even if we disregard NCOMPANY, how does this pass GNG? It's interesting their products are collectibles but do we have even as little as a single reliable source that says so? Otherwise, the article is not only a GNG - stretch, but OR too (based on forum posts, collector websites, and worse). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus As I said in my first post, there is not one SIGCOV, just snippets, or small articles that don't have the depth, and so therefore does not meet our rules. It's my frustration that sometimes Wikipedia rules are wrong - this is a clearly notable closed business which is collected, but our rules say its not as we don't have SIGCOV. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davidstewartharvey, Our rules can always be changed. Maybe you can start a draft for Wikipedia:Notability (collectibles)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I have already tried a Historical Impact/Importance rule which failed, and so far my current idea in the village pump for a Public Transport SNG has not exactly got a plethora of responses! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Undertale#Plot. czar 06:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papyrus (Character)[edit]

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

Character in a video game, does not have SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Content is OR/SYNTH, nothing to merge. Don't think a redirect is helpful, but no objection if others wish to redirect to Undertale. WP:NOTGUIDE // Timothy :: talk 01:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major character from a notable video game. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sans (character), I think a duo article like Papyrus and Sans is a sensible option since they are almost always seen as a duo. Papyrus has some notability, as the character gets a page-long mention in the published work Things I Learned from Mario's Butt (2021), as well as numerous mentions in gaming articles. (I've always thought they were inspired by Ornstein and Smough, especially considering the Anor Londo-esque Asgore's palace where you fight Sans.)_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, this is the creator of this page User:Sonic Punch Revival here, this article is set for deletion, I need better citations for Papyrus partacily the In Undertale and Deltarune sections in the article and I like to have other people improving this article for me. 23:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC) User talk:Sonic Punch Revival[reply]
Delete After Draft:Papyrus (Undertale) was declined twice for relying on unreliable sources and for showing no indication of notability the author decided to create a duplicate version of this in mainspace. SK2242 (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the article's creator: You might want to learn Wikipedia's article formatting guides before creating an article. I am not going to say that Papyrus is unnotable, just read Help:Your first article first. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As others have said, the sourcing doesn't demonstrate notability. Also, I would advise to not merge as Sans is in my understanding a more culturally prominent character, unless there are sources to demonstrate Papyrus's notability. Also, their merging seems a little synthetic to me, in that it could imply they've well known largely as a duo, when they are popular as individual characters. In other words, people talk about "Sans" and "Papyrus" a lot but not "Sans and Papyrus"; they've not the Koopalings. - Novov T C 07:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Undertale - I agree with the delete arguments above regarding the lack reliable sources, as well as Novov's arguments against merging this with the article on Sans. However, redirecting this to the main Undertale article would make sense. Rorshacma (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Undertale. Sans is verifiably a more culturally prominent character; and this prominence usually doesn't involve him as part of a duo. (Example: Super Smash Bros. added/is adding Undertale characters to its lineup but so far it's only been the protagonist and Sans.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Undertale. Papyrus is simply nowhere near notable as Sans. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 17:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krister Isaksen[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "He has won the Norwegian equivalent of the FA cup so I don't feel that this is uncontroversial. Take it to AfD if you don't think the coverage is GNG-standard." - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and the deprod rationale doesn't even address WP:GNG, let alone demonstrate it is met. Winning Cups is irrelevant to notability, and in this case a more apposite comparison is probably the (semi-professional) FA Trophy. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Target Travel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero coverage outside of local news sources The Herald and PlymouthLive - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:15, 21 February 2021 (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 was previously discussed at AfD and the result was Speedy Deleted. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2008-02 Speedy Deleted

Logs: 2008-02 ✗ G11

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or 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 WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and rename to Taiwanese television drama Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese drama[edit]

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

Originally researched content fork of articles listed in the "See also" section. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:AFD is not cleanup. If there are specific parts that are original research, then those parts should be edited, but the topic itself is notable, and the term "Taiwanese drama" or shortenings like "TDrama", "T-Drama", "TWDrama", "TW-Drama", etc., are commonly used in the East Asian series fandom in the West. Compare similar articles in Hong Kong television drama, Japanese television drama, and Korean television drama (no objection to renaming this article by inserting the word "television" for consistency with those other articles); if those topics are notable, then so is this one. —Lowellian (reply) 16:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment I've been here for a while, I'm well aware deletion is not cleanup. My point is that it reads as a content fork of the articles listed in the see also section. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 16:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 18:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and agree per User:Lowellian. Btw, Taiwanese dramas are popular in Burma too. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename -- per Lowellian. Feel free to cut sections of the article as need be, but the topic itself is a notable overarching topic. matt91486 (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Poor discussion so far: the "keep"s merely assert notability rather than establish it by citing sources. And AnotherEditor144 is a blocked sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or at least draftify). This article is well integrated to the encyclopedia as it has it's own lists (List of Taiwanese dramas from 2000 to 2010 and List of Taiwanese dramas from 2011 to 2020), is part of a set (Template:Television drama series), and 400+ pages link to it. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 05:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dalston bus garage[edit]

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

No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The place had a good run of 75 years and the fact that the site was a barracks before seems notable. As well as being a significant bus depot and hub for multiple bus companies, it has also attracted coverage in other respects. There were significant studies of diesel fumes there as a matter of occupational health. And there were some communist organisers there who show up in labour histories such as Radical Aristocrats – London Busworkers from the 1880s to the 1980s. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Please provide at least 3 independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. All I can find in book searches are mentions and there is nothing at all in news searches. SK2242 (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite content with the results of my searching and so shall go to bed rather than bringing the nominator more shrubberies. See WP:NOTCOMPULSORY: "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." Andrew🐉(talk) 23:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t have anything for GNG then I’m quite content this should be deleted. SK2242 (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See below for more details. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I PRODded this a few days ago while scanning through articles that had notability tags from 2009. All I could find about this garage was an entry on red-rf.com (non-RS), an image of the interior of the garage on ltmuseum.co.uk, and a one-sentence mention on timebus.co.uk. There is a 1957 study on diesel fumes which ran some tests in Merton and Dalston garages, but if being an example test site for primary industrial medicine research papers from the 50s is grounds for notability then we'd have to write articles on hundreds of local foundries and water tanks. JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. References are not sufficient to justify notability. DoctorsHub (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 09:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It exists. That's about all it has going for it. Fails WP:GNG. Move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't exist. The article says clearly that it closed in 1981 and so it seems that Piotrus hasn't read it. 1981 is before the Internet and so the history of this place is not so easy to access. I expect that there's more to find in the London Transport Museum. I would normally pop in there to check but it's closed currently on account of the pandemic. There are clearly sensible alternatives to deletion such as merger with Dalston#Buses but, as usual, the usual suspects fail to consider these. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you mean by "usual suspects"? There are clear as day guidelines on notability, adhering to them and locating articles which fail them does not make you a "zealot". SK2242 (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SK2242 has a userbox which gives us a clue. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~del~~

This editor is a deletionist.

Your point? I’d rather be a deletionist than someone who ignores notability guidelines to protect their favourite articles. SK2242 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update An occasional editor who seems to know their stuff has favoured us with a good update citing sources such as London Transport Bus Garages Since 1948 and London Transport Bus Garages. The nay-sayers above are thereby refuted. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No we are not. What is the level of coverage in these sources? SK2242 (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once sources are found, one soon leads to another. I've just found another one of the same sort: Garaging London's Red Buses. What the article mainly needs now is some good photos. The London Transport Museum has some excellent ones which I'm working through now. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did not answer my question but ok. SK2242 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know the extent of coverage. The only one of the new refs added that I could view online was Wharmby's book, which has a short chapter on the "Dalston Experimentals" but doesn't seem to cover the garage itself; rather it seems to discuss the particular buses employed on Dalston's routes? I assume the books on the actual garages have more details, but if the info added to the article with those refs reflects their degree of coverage then I don't think that would satisfy notability. JoelleJay (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable edifice with enough decent sources to justify an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black & White Publishing[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This article has been around for fourteen years, and I don't understand why it hasn't previously been looked at for deletion. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I pondered this one as it isn't unusual for book publishers to have a credible wikipedia article, though I take the point in this case that it's perhaps a much lesser known publisher (300-ish printed books is not a significant amount). It's also fair to say that a notable book doesn't translate to equal notability for the publisher. I can't find any meaningful source material about them that can assert notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The multiple, reliable, secondary sources are largely about the publications rather than the publisher per se but their abundance makes me inclined to view them as significant. There are are also multiple mentions of the award-winning status of their Itchy Coo imprint and of its cultural significance by the Scots Language Centre. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, multiple notable mentions of the publisher are to be had, particularly regarding Itchy Coo. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would just wonder if the article itself qualifies as being notable just because some of the published books may be. Notability doesn't automatically extend to the publisher. My vote was weak as I didn't feel strongly enough that it's clear-cut, but I also don't see sufficient evidence of publisher notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The references added by Mutt Lunker since this AfD began indicate a breadth of attention for the activities of this publisher and their main imprint, which I think is enough for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having conducted a WP:BEFORE I did see mentions of this publisher, which have been added into the article by Mutt Lunker, but I really don't think they're thorough enough despite being abundant, as you say. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes NCORP. Niceguylucky (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you could elaborate. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As would I. Niceguylucky, can you link to any two/three references that meet the criteria for establishing notability below so we can see? Thanks. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Niceguylucky has since been blocked for sock-puppetry and the AfD contributions from their socks have been struck. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per NCORP, what is required is an in-depth significant reference *about the company* as per WP:CORPDEPTH that includes "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. None of the references meet the criteria as none provide in-depth "Independent Content" discussing either Black & White Publishing nor Itchy Coo. Topic fail NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that the additional coverage of the subject that I have appended to the article since the discussions above further strengthen the case for its fulfilment of GNG, in particular those relating to the publisher's significant and premier role in the provision of Scots language educational materials and in their extensive and leading impetus behind changes to attitudes regarding the teaching of the tongue, supported by numerous sources including, compellingly, by the reports of the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Government ministerial working group. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references you have added are mostly talking about the fact that a specific, well-known book has been translated into the Scots language and not actually about Itchy Coo or Black & White, see [24], [25], [26], with more examples that can be seen in the article. As for the Scottish Arts Council, the source only mentions Black & White once, and it only says it is in a "partnership" with Itchy Coo, the subject of the piece in the source. Also, some of the sources don't even mention Black & White, see [27], [28]. Finally, how can we judge the notability of winning an award like this, especially when Scots is the second most popular language in Scotland. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most fundamental thing you can cover regarding a publisher of books is its books.

Itchy Coo is an imprint of Black & White. If a source covers Itchy Coo, it covers Black & White.

I'm struggling to understand what material you would regard as pertinent about a publisher if its books and its imprints are not. What else do publishers do of note?

I'm not sure I understand your final question but even if you are saying awards count for less for minority languages, that is immaterial in relation to the notability criteria. If even a worthless award gets significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, its worthlessness is neither here nor there re notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska. These are always hard to judge because there is always coverage of the election as a whole, and coverage of each district, so mere articles on the 3rd district would not seem to be enough to warrant a stand alone article unless there is some event, something special, that is covered by RS that is utterly unique to the election or the main article. That is more or less the vibe I'm getting from the consensus here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Nebraska's 3rd congressional district election[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:RECENT. It talks more about campaign funding and Kleeb than it does about the results, and even then those results are nothing special and were typical for the average Nebraska's 3rd district election. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If a standalone article doesn't work, a selective merge would improve the very stubby 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska article. Congressional elections by state are of general historic interest. The candidates, controversies and the national attention in this particular race contribute to that history. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'd be fine with that tbh. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska is allowed to have prose, these don't have to have separate articles whenever it goes beyond results templates. Can be as selective as desired. Reywas92^Talk 19:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An "average" election for an idividual seat in a national legislature is definitely notable and is deserving of a standalone WP article. There are sufficient sources in the article already to pass WP:GNG. The issues that the nom complains about require article expansion and improvement, not deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nsk92: No, it's not. It was not a special election, but a regular election that would've occurred in early November every two years regardless of who held that seat. That's why it's better suited to be merged into the 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona list-article thingy and nothing else.

That's precisely my point. Every regular election for an individual seat in a national legislature is automatically presumtively notable, as far as I am concerned, and deserves a standalone WP article if it can be properly and substantively sourced. That's definitely the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there are literally hundreds of regular national elections being held every two years. You're saying we should create an article for EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM? Love of Corey (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is dead wrong, with no consensus for that at all among the elections Wikiproject, nor precedent in e.g. Canadian Parliament or UK House of Commons elections for individual seat notability. There are 440 Congressional elections every biennium, and they are divided by state rather than individually because they are not individually automatically notable. Just because something can be substantively sourced does not mandate a separate article, and this can be well covered in the main Nebraska page. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The elections Wikiproject doesn't get to write policy, and there is no specific policy regarding notability of election articles. The closest one is WP:EVENT. There is a specific provision there that is directly on point, WP:LASTING, which reads: "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation." A national legislative election certainly does that. If someone has the time to create 435 individual congressional elections articles every two years, I see abslutely no problems with that. These events gets significant coverage and significant effect too. Nsk92 (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every single election for every single state and/or federal seat for every democracy in the world will receive some sort of coverage, but we've consistently held they're not all eligible for articles, though some can be. This particular election really didn't have a lasting impact and has relatively routine sources. SportingFlyer T·C 15:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a notability argument, but the general convention is to merge biannual US house elections into one article per state. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska per Reywas92. Love of Corey (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per varied sources in the article satisfying the GNG. Merging everything along with others just as expanded in the general Nebraska article would just make that article unwieldy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Morbidthoughts: Actually, merging it into the general Nebraska article would be pretty easy. A paragraph is just enough, not an entire separate article. So again, it fails WP:SPLIT. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're making a WP:ITSCRUFT argument after the GNG being met was pointed out. SPLIT, which is neither guideline nor policy, does not apply when this election itself meets the GNG and has that much content. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In furtherance of my merge!vote, allow me to point out WP:ROUTINE. These elections are held every two years, as required by law. And as ROUTINE says, "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence. It's why we automatically have articles on special elections, because they do NOT fall into a ROUTINE sort of standard when it comes to the regular election cycle. Love of Corey (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. "Common, everyday" in WP:ROUTINE refers to things like Friday night high school football games and regular meetings of a local school board, not to elections to the national parliament. National parliamentary elections and their winners affect legislation, government policy, national public debate, oversight of government agencies, foreign relations and so on. That's why we see members of Congress on TV every day. The same WP:ROUTINE section, looking at its actual context, gives ample examples of events that it actually means as applicable: wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, sports matches, film premieres, press conferences, etc. Not even close to national parlimentary elections. Nsk92 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, "Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence." And we're not talking about a national parliamentary election, we're talking about a national congressional election. Two different things. Love of Corey (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, if one looks at the actual full text of Wikipedia:ROUTINE (which also goes under a more descriptive name WP:DOGBITESMAN) and the examples given there, it is completely obvious that the provision refers to routine everyday types of events, not elections to U.S. Congress (or to any other national legislature). Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't believe single seat races held as part of a general election are article-worthy. Number 5 7 17:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Keep Every other election has an article here, it would be weird to be missing a few. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not "every other election" has an article. There are only a handful of articles on individual, general elections. Love of Corey (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I have seen loads of elections with articles. Also, there seems to be a gray area as to whether one single election counts as notable or not. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I strongly believe this is something that Wikipedia needs to discuss in terms of policy. Love of Corey (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Reywas92 — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge generally these are merged to one article per state per year. This isn't too exceptional of a race to need its own article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is zero explanation in the nom for how this fails GNG; there is plainly significant coverage in the article itself that requires no OR to extract the content from the sources. There is also opportunity for expansion, as the race had a lasting impact (see, e.g., this for a description of its impact on Keystone XL activism and this commentary on the legal ramifications of the robocalls -- although these don't establish notability IMO, they do indicate a need for a separate article). The delete and merge arguments are unconvincing; that the parent article is "allowed" to have prose isn't a reason to delete this one, a misreading of WP:ROUTINE is not a reason to delete (a misreading because passing GNG obviously means that it is not trivial, "run-of-the-mill", "exempt[] from newsworthiness"—much less entirely based around "planned coverage", since the robocalls etc were not planned coverage...), and that there could be more articles is obviously not a reason to delete this one. And even if the fact that the results were "typical for the average Nebraska's 3rd district election" is a reason to delete (it's not), they were not typical. And that the article could use work is not a reason to delete. Urve (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Even with all that information, it can still be merged into a paragraph on the 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska article. This is just ridiculous. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fail to see the instrumental value of merging into "a paragraph" on another page, when there's more than a paragraph of content that the article can support. An anomalous race with a high-visibility visitation by Bush, attention from Republican and Democratic funding organs, a lasting controversy about robocalls and their legal significance, and being the springboard for Kleeb's Senate campaign—with significant coverage for each of these—sounds like a fine idea for an article. I'm sorry you find my opinion "ridiculous". Urve (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92 - some elections can have standalone articles, but as an article about a safe seat that was a "little closer" than usual, this doesn't appear to be one of them. All of the important information in the article can easily be merged into the state's list of elections page, and all of the sources are "routine" election reporting. SportingFlyer T·C 14:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This type of article when well done is where wikipedia can shine. Over time, the issues of a particular election (what influenced the outcome, what the district looked like) get lost in reported sources about a politician, but these articles provide a focus on just the notable election.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska per those above. There is nothing about this specific House election that stands out from other contested House elections to the extent that it should be treated differently. BD2412 T 18:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#Avengers. Consensus is clearly against keeping this, and so is WP:V as a core policy, given that after 14 days of AfD the article has remained unsourced. What the definitive redirect target should be and whether any (sourceable) content should be merged is up to editors. Sandstein 13:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers (film)[edit]

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

No single source cited. Lacks WP:GNG Jenyire2 05:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 05:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 05:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the moment it has no refs, so technically it is not proven as notable. However, I think this is a silly afd nomination as the Avengers is notable as a film franchise, and this more of a clear up and fix job which will be done before the afd is closed.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a reasonable split from Avengers_(comics)_in_other_media#Film as the latter has a clumsy title and doesn't do justice to this huge topic. The claim that it's not notable is absurd. Here's a sample source which took about 10 seconds to find. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect there are obviously sources available. However, this seems like a WP:CFORK of Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Two, Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Three and other articles. Avengers_(comics)_in_other_media#Film isn't a great redirect target, but is good enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Two" is not exactly the common name for this, is it? The source I cited calls its article "The Avengers Franchise", which sounds mucb more plausible. Anyway, whatever one calls it, it's notable and so deletion is not appropriate. And it shouldn't be buried under an obscure title either. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Marvel Cinematic Universe is as common a name as The Avengers for the film franchise as a whole, and this level of plot detail clearly can't fit in the main MCU article, so it has already been split to a sub-article. I suppose I'm not clear how "The Avengers" franchise differs from the MCU. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Avengers is just one of numerous Marvel superhero teams and the MCU covers many others. See List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series, for example. And the MCU is growing as it folds in other franchises such as Deadpool. Trying to cover all this under one heading is not sensible. We already have plenty of pages and this is just another one. See WP:NOTPAPER. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. It definitely needs a new title (this one should redirect to a DAB, as we have The Avengers (1950 film) and The Avengers (1998 film) among other title conflicts) and new content (all of this is the wrong tone for a plot summary, and there's nothing else) but if many people think we need another standalone article I don't see a reason to forbid it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fork argument is rather daft as MCU has been forked already. And if it should be a redirect shouldn't it be The Infinity Saga? As Andrew said, if you type in Avengers film in Google you get The Avengers Film Series.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article needs a significant rewrite to conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, as it is written almost entirely from an in-universe perspective. At this point, my inclination would be to recommend "delete", although I suspect that the article may be improved before this AfD ends so I will refrain from recommending that now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT and/or fork of Avengers (comics). Then this could be redirected to The Avengers which is what most people would expect to find following this redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page being recommended for a redirect is a disambiguation page! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we could redirect to The Avengers (2012 film) which would be consistent with the current title, Avengers (film). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan90, Yes, that's the target I meant. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I can understand that you are unhappy with the current status of the article, but please consider that there are secondary source out there. We recently had a discussion about what amounts to analysis. Maybe you will like Déjà New in Joss Whedon's Marvel's The Avengers which has sentences like "Concomitant with the invalidation of the traditional, wholly constituted superhero are the conflictual dynamics and resultant intersubjective interpellation of the Avengers team." Daranios (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daranios, Fair enough, but I simply don't see why we need two articles about The Avengers. All of this can be discussed in Avengers (comics). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: In contrast to the other suggested targets, Avengers (comics)#In other media would make sense. But I think by now more people will have experienced the Movie version of the Avengers than the original comics version, and the movie version is discussed independently by secondary sources. So I see no reason not to apply WP:GNG here, as has been done by the nominator. And I think the subject on its own fullfils that. I also see no reason to WP:TNT the current version. It is seriously lacking, but it does provide decent if too long plot-summary, which would be a relevant part of an article improved by editing. Daranios (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Daranios, Which sources discuss this entity, in the movie-only context, in-depth? I didn't see anything but a plot summary/passing mentions in the sources presented. If I missed something, could you tell me which page contains an analysis-like discussion, and how long is it? Quotations would be greatly appreciated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: So you were willing to endorse deletion when there was no indication that the nominator did any WP:BEFORE whatsoever as would be part of the suggested AfD process, but you require proof for keeping? That seems... assymetrical. I really would have preferred to spend that time to work on improving articles discussed as requiring improvement earlier, but I'll get back to you if this discussion stays open long enough.

Let's start with Avengers Assemble! Critical Perspectives on the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I can only see the preview chapters. Those mostly analyze individual members of the Avengers, including statements like "the new millenial incarnations of these characters are immersed in the geopolitical climate of the post-9/11 decades", "The bodies of Tony Stark, Bruce Banner, Thor, Peter Quill and Captain America are richly symbolic significatory systems pregnant with meaning and association just as Wayne's and Stallone's were to the discourse of their own respective eras." and their interaction: "In the MCU these changes are seen most clearly in the effectively drawn contrast between Tony Stark's new millenial cynicism and Cap's 'old-fashioned' ideals when they are first paired onscreen in The Avengers... Both men, even with their differences, can be read as a concerted attempt to reclaim American national identity in the wake of 9/11...through the regenerative powers of violence which Richard Slotkin classified as the definitve 'structuring metaphor of the American experience'" etc.

I assume but cannot prove that there is a lot more in the other chapters. My assumption is based on: It has the Avengers and Critical perpectives... in the title. That claim is supported by the flyer at academia.edu (first hit in this search, don't know how to link that properly, for what that's worth, and this short review in the Journal of American Studies, which also tells us that the book brings "a level of depth to their deployment that establishes many of McSweeney's analyses (particularly those centring on various Iron Man and Hulk appearances, and on Captain America: Civil War (2016)) as fresh and important". The table of contents tells us what the book does critical analysis of (among others): Iron Man, Captain America, the tandem Thor/Hulk, ethical questions raised for the characters in The Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Then "Déjà New in Joss Whedon's Marvel's The Avengers": What about the sentence I have alreay quoted? I don't completely understand it, maybe you can explain it, but it sure does not sound like plot-summary to me. Daranios (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And there would be more to be said and searched for, but I am happy to spend time constructively elsewhere. Daranios (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daranios, Considering that nothing in the current article goes outside plot summary fancruft, I still see no reason to save the current article. You found some content that could be used to expand the article on Avengers. The difference between comic variant(s) and movie one(s) seems superficial and I am still not convinced we need to have separate articles on them. Expand the comic one, and per WP:SUMMARY, when (or if) the discussion of the movie group gets too long then it can be split away. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I can understand that position but I don't share it. Most articles start imperfectly. Throwing out the work already done to have a better intermediate state prevents having an imperfect article for a long time. But it also puts the hurdle for having a decent article at any point much higher. So I am curious again how the decision will be in this case. Daranios (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Andrew Davidson. The article currently is obviously not up to par, but I would be very surprised if there would not be enough secondary sources about the subject to change that into a decent article. Has a WP:BEFORE search actually been done? Simply clicking the suggested Google Scholar link leads to e.g. Avengers Assemble! Critical Perspectives on the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The WP:CFORK and redirect arguments all have one flaw: None of the targets matches the subject. The fictional Avengers team has featured in four films now, with other films providing a bit of support for the topic. So The Avengers (2012 film) is obviously to narrow, Marvel Cinematic Universe and The Infinity Saga are too broad; Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One, Two, Three are both, each containing one or two films about the Avengers but also many others. Daranios (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A second source going into more analytical detail on the subject would be this freely available paper: Déjà New in Joss Whedon's Marvel's The Avengers. It focuses on the presentation of the Avengers in first movie, but I think togethere these two sources should already fulfull WP:GNG. Daranios (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marvel Cinematic Universe which could easily be renamed "The Avengers related films". The Infinity Saga would be acceptable too. The issue is that this topic is already covered at other articles making this a WP:CONTENTFORK. To the extent this features any unique content it's almost entirely primary sources and plot summary, which is something that Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. We don't create endless content forks of unsourced/primary sourced material when a summary at the parent article will do. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But is that not looking at the current state of the article only? Avengers Assemble! Critical Perspectives on the Marvel Cinematic Universe is an entire book dedicated to critical analysis, with a significant portion of that about the Avengers. Marvel Cinematic Universe is already a large article and contains, as far as I have seen, almost no plot summary. So if this article, was overhauled to be a balanced account of plot-summary and critical analysis, based on such sources as the mentioned one, of the fictional team, it would still not be a WP:CONTENTFORK with Marvel Cinematic Universe as it is now. If we started plot-summary + analysis section for the individual characters/teams within Marvel Cinematic Universe, I think that would blow it to unwieldy size. Daranios (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Daranios, which resolves the nominator's complaint that the article is wholly uncited, as well as the reasoning they gave. Haleth (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Characters_of_the_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe#Avengers is a better redirect target than the ones I've seen (or have) proposed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI, the page Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) currently redirects to Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe § Avengers, which would be a far more appropriate title for this article should this article be kept. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After a week at AfD, no sources have been added to this article, nor has it been improved to conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But AfD is not clean-up, that issues have not been dealt with within the time of a deletion discussion is discussed as an argument to avoid. In my opinion it has been shown that secondary sources exist which can be used to solve the issues the article has at the moment. Daranios (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Characters_of_the_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe#Avengers - Regardless of the sources or the current state of the article, the topic is likely never going to be anything but a unnecessary content fork for already existing articles. Even if some users think it could be retooled into a useful article, the current article should not remain in the encyclopedia's main space until then, as it is nothing but completely unsourced, in-universe plot summaries of a number of movies that already have their own articles. And unsourced material like this simply cannot be justified to remain as an article. Until an actual proper article can be developed, this should either be moved back into draft space or, more usefully, used as a redirect to the proper current article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this has already been covered in a main article plus a few more. Clear WP:CONTENTFORK. Archrogue (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, preferably to The Avengers (2012 film), per WP:TNT. As it stands there is absolutely nothing worth saving in this article, which is just poorly written plot summary and fancruft. If another editor wants to re-attempt the article and write it in an encyclopedic style, they are more than welcome to. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 23:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content of this article should merged with Draft: Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe). InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any valuable content should be merged into Draft:Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and the page redirected to The Avengers (2012 film).★Trekker (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Community Transport[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Only cite is an unreliable enthusiast page. SK2242 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did find ^[1] which is excellent however the article cannot solely rely on that one source and IMHO notability-wise it's not enough, Found ^[2] which is only a mention, Only other results I've found are all LOCAL stuff (xmas timetables, fare increases, roadworks). Fails GNG/BASIC. –Davey2010^Talk 13:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Sheffield gets electric scooters". 23 November 2010. Retrieved 2021-02-21 – via news.bbc.co.uk.
^ Sheffield, University of (7 July 2016). "Lizzie the elephant: how an elephant captured the heart of a city - Archive - News archive - The University of Sheffield". www.sheffield.ac.uk. Retrieved 2021-02-21.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Officially a very poor discussion with views expressed as opinions of vaguewaves. The policy arguments are broadly to delete but it would be a supervote to prefer that over a preponderance of the discussion. The irony of so much muddy thinking in a discussion about a serious scientist is not lost on me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Jones (scientist)[edit]

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

Although won a $1.1mil grant, plus a few awards, I'm not sure being an associate professor with a h-index of 19 is sufficient for this field. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON? Kj cheetham (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Likely TOOSOON. I used Scopus to do an "average professor test" by comparing a number of prestige parameters of Dr. Jones to the 17 coauthors of hers holding professorships on 18 of her top-cited and most recent papers. Total citations: average: 7916, median: 4304, Jones: 557. Total papers: avg: 142, med: 76, Jones: 31. h-index: avg: 41, med: 38, Jones: 16. Highest citation: avg: 853, med: 267, Jones: 75. Highest-citation (first-author): avg: 213, med: 169, Jones: 75. Based on these results she is far below the average professor in academic output (because she is early-career) and does not meet C1. Absent meeting other PROF or GNG criteria, I would lean delete. JoelleJay (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to note that if people notice that I said h-index of 19 rather than 16, that's because I got it from Google Scholar instead of Scopus. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Serious question, how is deleting this article on a black female scientist helping Wikipedia? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On further research, I'm going with a formal keep as notable for being principal investigator on a study supported by a large and prestigious grant, which has received independent press coverage, and for her innovative work promoting the recruitment of BAME students to non-medical sciences. I believe JoelleJay's citation analyses are inherently flawed, as explained on their talk page. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per User: Espresso Addict. Despite this individual being early career they have won awards and grants. Furthermore, they have supported teaching students at historically Black colleges in the United States. One does not only measure impact through looking at publication statistics. Who is an "average professor" in this case? Far below in comparison to who? Representation matters and when we think of notability and impact it is important to look beyond citation count. I do not think this article should be deleted. --Smallison (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC) https://www.sciencenews.org/article/black-scientists-disparities-representation-stem-science[reply]

My comment was in reference to NPROF C1 only. Citation metrics are the standard method of assessing someone's scientific impact on a field -- the other factors you mention would likely fall under different criteria and would be highly dependent on coverage by independent RS specifically discussing her contributions to minority representation. Since it's not clear that that coverage exists, we must rely on the notability criteria that don't require secondary coverage -- citations, awards, professional positions. It's uncertain whether a 1.1M grant for an instrument-intensive (read: expensive) field is especially unusual, but very well could be a relevant notability boost. JoelleJay (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as explained below, a 1.1 M grant over 5 years is actually not uncommon in academia. --hroest 19:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had similar thoughts. Are the coauthor cite comparisons actually because people at the top of the field want to work with her? That should count for rather than against. Additionally, $1.1M is an exceptional grant at that stage. And there was enough to write an interesting, complete entry. I’m hard-pressed to see the improvement made by deleting it. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Innisfree987, the majority of the professor-level coauthors of Dr. Jones collaborated with when she was a grad student or post-doc, so it's unlikely they were seeking her out specifically. Nevertheless, to account for this I also assessed 50 authors of 13 articles citing several of her papers.

Citation metrics of authors citing Dr. Jones

Professional positions of everyone with an h-index of ≥4 included.

Caption text
Citing paper	Name	Citation #	Pub #	h-index	Highest cite	Highest first-author cite	Position
Early modification of cytochrome c by hydrogen peroxide triggers its degradation	Natasa Tomaskova	80	9	5	32	20	?
Early...	Petr Novak	3063	149	29	462	53	prof, ETH Zurich
Early...	Tibor Kozar	1120	48	18	105	23	sr scientist, IEP of Slovak Acad.
Early...	Martina Petrencakova	7	4	1	6	1	--
Early...	Daniel Jancura	939	61	18	85	40	assoc. prof, UPJS
Early...	Ghazaleh Yassaghi	20	4	2	10	10	--
Early...	Petr Man	2154	120	27	95	37	sr researcher, Charles U
Early...	Erik Sedlak	1394	73	22	126	126	assoc. prof
Probing the effects of heterogeneous oxidative modifications on the stability of cytochrome c in solution and in the gas phase	Victor Yin	73	7	4	27	27	postdoc, Utrecht
Probing...	Lars Konermann	6371	167	43	447	447	prof, Western U
Native mass spectrometry of membrane proteins	James Keener	86	9	4	27	22	grad student, Arizona
Native...	Guozhi Zhang	27	3	2	22	4	--
Native...	Michael Marty	1001	41	18	206	206	prof, Arizona
Selective cross-linking of coinciding protein assemblies by in-gel cross-linking mass spectrometry	Johannes Hevler	41	3	1	41	0	--
Selective...	Marie Lukassen	52	9	4	14	8	postdoc, Utrecht
Selective...	Alfredo Cabrera-Orefice	222	19	10	32	25	postdoc, Radboud
Selective...	Susanne Arnold	2199	41	25	208	164	assoc. prof, Radboud
Selective...	Matti Pronker	59	6	2	45	45	--
Selective...	Vojtech Franc	341	20	10	71	36	asst prof, Czech Tech
Selective...	Albert Heck	39100	730	95	913	509	prof, Utrecht
Higher-order structural characterisation of native proteins and complexes by top-down mass spectrometry	Mowei Zhou	643	31	14	78	78	scientist, PNNL
Higher...	Carter Lantz	70	6	3	42	0	--
Higher...	Kyle Brown	175	12	4	73	15	postdoc, Wisconsin
Higher...	Ying Ge	3360	121	34	229	124	prof, Wisconsin
Higher...	Ljiljana Pasa-Tolic	10158	237	53	425	194	Fellow/Deputy of Tech, PNNL
Higher...	Joseph Loo	21951	450	80	1113	1113	prof, UCLA
Higher...	Frederik Lermyte	417	42	12	67	67	asst prof, TU Darmstadt
Protein higher-order-structure determination by fast photochemical oxidation of proteins and mass spectrometry analysis	Xiaoran Roger Liu	98	12	6	37	37	scientist, Bristol-Myers-Squibb
Protein...	Don Rempel	2613	81	27	430	114	instrument specialist, WUSTL
Protein...	Michael Gross	25913	680	79	1846	251	prof, WUSTL
Exploring the structure and dynamics of macromolecular complexes by native mass spectrometry	Elisabetta Boeri Erba	5	3	1	4	4	--
Exploring...	Luca Signor	924	36	15	188	87	CEA researcher-engineer, ISBG
Exploring...	Carlo Petosa	4398	42	26	654	654	research sci., Grenoble
Subresidue-resolution footprinting of ligand-protein interactions by carbene chemistry and ion mobility-mass spectrometry	Gaoyuan Lu	74	9	4	23	1	PhD student
Subresidue...	Xiaowei Xu	320	33	11	44	14	scientist
Subresidue...	Gongyu Li	387	25	9	174	18	postdoc, Wisconsin
Subresidue...	Huiyong Sun	2747	67	26	325	325	assoc. prof, China Pharmaceutical U
Expanding the types of lipids amenable to nativ emass spectrometry of lipoprotein complexes	Marius Kostelic	6	2	1	6	6	--
Expanding...	Alex Ryan	6	1	1	6	0	--
Expanding...	Deseree Reid	81	5	4	30	30	grad student, Arizona
Expanding...	Jibriel Noun	6	1	1	6	0	--
The diverse and expanding role of mass spectrometry in structural and molecular biology	Philip Lossl	644	18	13	121	121	Nature Comms editor
The diverse...	Michiel van de Waterbeemd	575	14	12	121	70	principal scientist, MSD
Mass spectrometry-based fast photochemical oxidation of proteins (FPOP) for higher order structure characterization	Ke Sherry Li	106	5	4	37	37	assoc. sci., Genentech
Mass spec...FPOP	Liuqing Shi	322	18	11	64	64	sr sci, AbbVie
Protein footprinting comes of age: mass spectrometry for biophysical structure assessment	Liwen Wang	631	17	13	141	74	sr research assoc., Case Western
Protein footprinting...	Mark Chance	12604	277	61	557	144	prof, Case Western
Mass spectrometry-enabled structural biology of membrane proteins	Antonio Calabrese	524	34	13			Academic Fellow, Leeds
Mass spec...membrane	Sheena Radford	21124	310	78	936	705	prof, Leeds

Including all authors: total citations: avg: 3454, med: 417, J: 557; total papers: avg: 84, med: 20, J: 31; h-index: avg: 20, med: 12, J: 16; highest cite: avg: 224, med: 76, J: 75; highest first-author cite: avg: 128, med: 39, J: 75.

Including only the 14 people with professorships: total citations: avg: 10782, med: 4866, J: 557; total papers: avg: 241, med: 158, J: 31; h-index: avg: 47, med: 39, J: 16; highest cite: avg: 559, med: 436, J: 75; highest first-author cite: avg: 310, med: 200, J: 75.

Including all authors with ≥10 papers: total citations: avg: 5264, med: 1001, J: 557; total papers: avg: 126, med: 42, J: 31; h-index: avg: 29, med: 18, J: 16; highest cite: avg: 335, med: 158, J: 75; highest first-author cite: avg: 191, med: 83, J: 75.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this is a great deal of effort. I’m very sorry I didn’t chime in when I read the exchange you had with EA, to let you know I’m on the side of not finding this kind of novel invention of metrics—original research we might say—very compelling. Since the method is not established in RS, I can’t easily check it against other examples.
What I’m left with then is the same question EA posed: is the encyclopedia improved by deleting this entry? Is it harmed? I do believe this entry adds value for reasons I and others mention, and I don’t believe, eg, our standards are diminished by including it. So I join those !voting keep. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take much work, I can just download the metrics from Scopus and use a script I wrote for it. What criteria do you use when evaluating citation counts? Do you calibrate for subfield? And the purpose of AfD isn't to gauge harm versus improvement to Wikipedia; it is literally to assess whether an article meets policy guidelines (including WP:N and WP:NOT). JoelleJay (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see in my AfD log it’s not usually my deciding criteria for academics. This is because it’s so slippery; when I use it, I’m typically checking h-index against entries pointed out by those who regularly !vote on the specialty and can point to other comparable AfDs.
All that being said, our task in everything we do here is to improve the encyclopedia and avoid disrupting that project, including with WP:BURO.
I’m repeating myself now but since there’s a concern below for what affirmative arguments are being made, I !voted on the basis of her sizable grant and the sufficient material to write a complete entry—per WP:WHYN. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. As nom, I was a bit on the fence initially whether it was WP:TOOSOON, but I think the large grant and it's associated coverage pushes the article over the line, so I'm effectively withdrawing my nomination. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As time goes on I'm getting closer to just sitting on the fence. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's WP:TOOSOON here. The awards I see are early career, and don't contribute much to notability; similarly for the CAREER grant (see [29]). The citation record looks far short of WP:NPROF C1 in what I believe to be a medium-high citation field. I don't see any other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with the nominator whose opinion has changed. I say "weak" because she is quite young, but the new grant really indicates that, if we delete this article, we will need to recreate it in a couple of years. The nominator has withdrawn, so let us leave it for a couple of years and then maybe reconsider. --Bduke (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would love to see a solid argument for keeping here. So far, I'm seeing WP:NOHARM and an argument for temporary notability (in contrast with WP:NOTTEMPORARY). Now, there are arguments about her CAREER grant that are somewhat serious. The NSF CAREER grant is an early career grant intended to help her eventually reach notability, but is awarded mainly for promise. About 450 awards are made per year, see [30]. Past AfD precedent does not establish this as enough for WP:NPROF (although it certainly does not detract from notability). I'm interested in keeping articles about notable folks from underrepresented groups, but I'm very skeptical about NPROF here. Perhaps another notability criterion? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPROF its very clear that its TOOSOON from an academic point of view - we do not create articles for everybody with a NSF grant. Even though a 1M grant looks impressive, these are very common for assistant professors and generally barely cover the professors salary, lab expenses and maybe one or two students. This is a 5 year grant, so this is ca 200k per year to put this into perspective and in the US this will also have to cover her salary. As Russ pointed out there are 450 awards per year and current notability criteria do not support this grant alone as a reason for notability. The "associated press coverage" is university press which is basically vanity press (every University has those to promote their own scientists). She works in my subfield and I did see her speak at notable conferences including Pittcon and she is clearly an impressive scientist with a promising career, but for Wikipedia it is TOOSOON (talks at conferences are not a current criterion for notability either). Furthermore, a h-index of 19 is quite common for assistant professors at her stage, so unless we make all assistant professors notable (we don't, not even full professors are notable) we would be making an exception here. The only reason for keeping this would be if there were regional or national press coverage about her research or her position in science as a black scientist. I am not specifically arguing against this article, but want to provide context and would like to point that we would first have to have a much larger discussion about professors and their notability first. --hroest 16:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jones is an early career scientist who is cited frequently and with high regards in mass spec reviews. Upon further investigation, she also holds leadership roles in University of Maryland, Baltimore CURE Scholars Program, IMSD Meyerhoff Graduate Fellowship Program, and American Society for Mass Spectrometry. This is notable, especially for someone who recently obtained their PhD in 2016. Gggg2123 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The paper cites are still lower than what I'd expect for someone notable in the field under WP:NPROF #1 and the leadership roles mentioned don't seem to meet #6, i.e. "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society". "Promising" is closer to WP:TOOSOON than "notable". -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note, I started this page. I don't think that citations are a very useful metric, Jones has contributed to both scientific discoveries and education/academic culture. Jones developed a novel structural probe to better understand cell membranes. She serves as co-Director of the Meyerhoff Graduate Fellowship Program, which produced distinguished scholars such as Kizzmekia Corbett. I see WP:NOHARM in keeping this page up. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think citations are going to be important to see whether the method she developed is important (eg leads to important discoveries) and is used by other scientists - a method by itself is not relevant unless it is useful to gain insight into some biology. I agree with WP:NOHARM in this case and see the argument for keeping it, the only danger is that if the bar is lowered too much, Wikipedia will be flooded with self-promoting academics. --hroest 22:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Getting elected to the Board of Directors of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry [31] would appear to justify a lowering of the bar in the name of affirmative action. I am hoping the apparent non-existence of the role of "Co-Director of the Meyerhoff Graduate Fellowship Program" on its UMB pages, and the lack of any mention of Jones as either a Core Team member or even a Mentor for the CURE Scholars Program on its UMB pages, are mere clerical oversights. Wikipedia can ill-afford another scandal of that nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantor Simmonds (talk • contribs) 03:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC) — Cantor Simmonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Understand the reason for the AFD but she does seem to be notable enough to have an article. I wish we would be more explicit when we take articles to AFD that appear to have been created as part of projects to address Wikipedia's systemic bias such as via Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. I am NOT saying a different standard applies just that's its always better to have context, just as I usually get the benefit of the doubt when I create an article that it will be on a notable subject due to my experience.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The combination of academic career (in serious science) and "won a $1.1mil grant, plus a few awards" adds up to notable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No it does not, please see WP:PROF, the criteria are much more strict. --hroest 02:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said "notable" as in WP:N which is not the same as WP:PROF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nomination is erroneous. The prior nomination was not closed because the nominator was a sock but because the nominator withdrew. There was a Keep result in that case and the comprehensive details provided by DiamondRemley39 this time seem so overwhelming and strong that further input is not needed. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 13:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William W. Johnstone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Prolific author, but no reliable source evidence to indicate he was a notable one. Prior author AfD closed as keep not on merit grounds, but because nom was a sock. StarM 17:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as he was arguably one of the most popular authors of his genre in the 20th century. Will link below. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Publishers Weekly (multiple reviews here, which was on my first Google page and might have been found in a BEFORE)
- Kirkus
- Library Journal (by new writer)
- Scream of Eagles and Talons of Eagles reviewed by Booklist (accessed via Gale Literature) --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Review mentioned in previous AfD: 1
- About his legacy 1 and 2 DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nom seems to have not reviewed the most recent prior AfD, which is the one linked on the talk page, was withdrawn by the nominator here. The first AfD (here) was the one closed due to sockpuppetry. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct, missed that one entirely, but isn't a convincing keep either at my review. Reviewing your sources now and may withdraw if they appear to make a case for notability. StarM 02:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment', this PW one is good, and I did see it on Before, but I don't see that Kirkus or TrueWest are enough to meet notability, and question whether the latter is a reliable source. Going to let this run a little longer, but willing to withdraw if consensus is clear. He's popular and prolific, that doesn't necessarily mean notable StarM 02:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the problem with Kirkus would be--it's a trade publication of the caliber of Publishers Weekly; reviews from those publications fulfill author criteria #4. He meets NAUTHOR 1,3,4--and together those indicate he meets GNG too. I'll refbomb some more. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More Sources As multiple Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews of a bestselling author + his name/brand being continued in a second decade following his death aren't enough to prove that an author with millions of copies sold isn't anything more than a prolific writer, consider:

- Quick Googling shows he is currently on the New York Times bestseller list (his name as a penname, anyway: https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/mass-market-monthly/
- When I search "william w. johnstone" site:nytimes.com, I get more than 20 results. Most of those are bestseller rankings.
- When I do the same for usatoday.com, I get results too: 1 2 3 4 5

A sampling of what Proquest has:

BEST SELLERS. Philadelphia Daily News; Philadelphia, Pa. [Philadelphia, Pa]10 Jan 2021: D.2 Mass Market Paperback: Bestseller list from Publishers Weekly: Preacher’s Carnage at number 5, Blood in the Dust at #7, Texas Kill of the Mountain Men at #8.
- PUBLISHERS WEEKLY BEST-SELLERS. University Wire; Carlsbad [Carlsbad]09 Jan 2020. From PW: Preacher’s Frenzy (#6), Hired Guns (#9), Bloody Trail of the Mountain Man (#15)
- Publishers Weekly Bestsellers. Florida Times Union; Jacksonville, Fla. [Jacksonville, Fla]14 June 2020: 4. Rising Fire at #5, Pray for Death at #7.
- BEST SELLERS. Philadelphia Daily News; Philadelphia, Pa. [Philadelphia, Pa]17 Jan 2021: D.2. Preacher’s Carnage (#3), Blood in the Dust (#6)
- This week's best-sellers from Publishers Weekly. Kennebec Journal; Augusta, Me. [Augusta, Me]12 Jan 2019. The Black Hills (#6), Preacher’s Rage (#7)

Reviews (abstracts only viewable to me):
- Ambush of the Mountain Man: Nuns who once drove the church. Flaherty, Dolores; Flaherty, Roger.Chicago Sun - Times; Chicago, Ill. [Chicago, Ill]18 Jan 2004: 12.
- Trek of the Mountain Men: Making an enemy of your friend. Flaherty, Dolores; Flaherty, Roger.Chicago Sun - Times; Chicago, Ill. [Chicago, Ill]02 Feb 2003: 12.
- Warpath of the Mountain Men: It's a fair tale of a foundling. Flaherty, Dolores; Flaherty, Roger.Chicago Sun - Times; Chicago, Ill. [Chicago, Ill]04 Aug 2002: 14.

There are hundreds of other results in one Proquest database alone. I haven't touched the others, EBSCO, or Gale Literature. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeros and Ones[edit]

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

This article was created too soon. Per WP:NFF, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should NOT have their own articles...Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography AFTER shooting has begun." The sources used in this article were published BEFORE principal photography of the film. Please note I have already created a draft before the creation of this article. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 09:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AnotherEditor144 is a blocked sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article in draft space appears to be more accurate. I can find no evidence that principal photography did actually start in November 2020. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and TMB's rationale above. Kolma8 (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dennis Lance. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Arrow[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only source cited is an an unreliable enthusiast page. Book coverage is limited to:
1 paragraph in Dennis Buses and Other Vehicles
Mentions in Great British Buses, Jane's Urban Transport Systems, The English Bus Scene Since 1990 and Buses in All-Over Adverts. SK2242 (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Dennis Lance. It seems this was originally a redirect until 2014 and I see no reason why this state can't be reverted to. It's probably useful to have a redirect at this article name. As I understand, the arrow is/was a double-decker variant of the Lance, thus redirecting to it is probably appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dennis Lance. Lilporchy (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Travancore-Cochin cricketers. Daniel (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelappan Thampuran (cricketer, born 1925)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing about them in sources. Störm (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Travancore-Cochin cricketers are a weird beast. There are images of TC cricketers in their advanced age on their CA articles. I wonder if this means that there is further information in non-Internet printed sources that we would be unable to get our hands on. It must have been that they had a get-together when they were much older, though we have no way of knowing when the images were taken. Bobo . 21:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for repeating my argument from the other TC page. There must be non-Internet printed sources somewhere - these players' profiles include photos that were taken later in life, presumably during the Internet age and certainly in a context where they would probably also be used in print media. CA makes no indication of where these images come from other than calling the source CricPhotos, which I can't find anywhere which cites who they are. Bobo . 21:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Travancore-Cochin cricketers - as an alternative to deletion for this cricketer that doesn't seem to meet GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCRICKET. --IWI (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobo192: And your argument is exactly why we have guidelines like NCRICKET, which this person does not meet. --IWI (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has played a first-class match. Does not fail any subject-specific notability guidelines. Bobo . 10:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "first class"? --IWI (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Travancore-Cochin cricketers Has played 1 FC match, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches but no coverage, is deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Disregarding non-policy-based !keep votes, clear consensus exists. David Eppstein's comment is the most persuasive in terms of policy arguments. Daniel (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Kumar Malik[edit]

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

No indication of nobility. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:GNG, WP:RS RationalPuff (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.HariSinghw (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, h-index of 2, no coverage found. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep he is Dean school of law of eminent Central University of Haryana in India. He is a notable person. Indiandeanslaw (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Indiandeanslaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The SPA has been created just minutes before adding this vote. RationalPuff (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dean is not a high-enough administrative position to pass WP:PROF#C6, and the Central University of Haryana at which he works is a new university with an enrollment lower than many US High Schools, unlikely to be considered a "major academic institution". His name is common enough that I had trouble finding his publications in Google Scholar among the ones by the chemical engineer and library automation researcher with the same names; both of them had too-low citations for WP:PROF#C1 and this one's must be even lower. There could plausibly be a case for WP:AUTHOR but for that we'd need multiple published reviews of his books, not in evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per David Eppstein. Being a Dean is certainly not enough for passing WP:PROF#C6. Citability is quite low and there is no indication that his books made a significant impact. Does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep He is author and has been a member of the committee for taking policy making decision for whole India at National level deputed by apex body University Grants Commission of India. His contribution was remarkable.Mamtakuhu20 (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Mamtakuhu20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Being an author is not, in and of itself, indicative of notability. We would need proof (e.g. published reviews of his books) that his work has made significant impact. Committee work of the type you mention is not unusual for academics either. If his contributions there were indeed, "remarkable", as you say (and how do you know that?), we would need verifiable evidence from independent reliable sources regarding that. Nsk92 (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep "remarkable" In India it was a remarkable policy decision for education in India and may be verified from University Grants Commission (India) report given in reference of Rajesh Kumar Malik page.HariSinghw (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - David Eppstein's assessment of the notability of his position is most persuasive. And fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:PROF. scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ He is professor of law and a person become only after his or her remarkable contribution and He is Dean also of a Central University of Haryana in India. His contribution as a committee member of National level is notable.HariSinghw (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck this duplicate !vote since the same user has already cast a 'Speedy Keep' !vote above. Nsk92 (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Battle of Milliken's Bend#Aftermath and significance. I see a reasonable consensus for a merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Young's Point[edit]

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

I was actually looking to try to improve this article, and after examining the sources, I don't think this is a notable battle. The article is, in its entirety, a copy and paste of a public domain National Park Service piece, which is about the most detailed RS in existence about this "battle". The NPS piece is four paragraphs long, but two are about the campaign. The other two explain what happened here - a Confederate brigade was suppose to attack the Union camp at Young's Point, ran very late, freaked out when they saw how strong the Union defenses were, and left without bringing on a battle.

Here's what other RS about the Vicksburg campaign have to say about this "battle" -

Donald L. Miller in Vicksburg (2019) p. 455 - The other two rebel operations planned for that day against Lake Providece and Young's Point were called off because of overpowering Union strength, the appearance, at Young's Point, of Porter's ironclads, and rebel disorganization

William L. Shea and Terrence J. Winschel, Vicksburg is the Key (2003), p. 165 The encounters at Lake Providence and Young's Point were of even less significance

Frances H. Kennedy (ed.) The Civil War Battlefield Guide (1998) has a well-developed section about the Vicksburg campaign, and briefly mentions that a Confederate expedition to Young's Point was planned to go along with the Battle of Milliken's Bend, but doesn't say anything else about it.

Martha M. Bigelow's 1960 journal article about Milliken's Bend at [32] says The expedition to Young's Point was an abortive one - seeing gunboats stationed at Young's Point the Confederates withdrew without attacking

Shelby Foote's The Beleaguered City (1960) devotes half a sentence to this action.

While these examples (the sources I happened to have on hand) are not everything that has ever been written, they are representative of sources about the Vicksburg campaign. I find it telling that only the NPS source devotes more than a single sentence to this action. This is clearly a non-event that hasn't gotten scholarly attention, and WP:GNG isn't met because the sources are not significant coverage. I have conducted further WP:BEFORE and haven't found anything that is more significant than what is stated above. Obviously, planned but not executed military actions can be notable, but I don't think this one is.

There's a small touch of coverage of this action at Battle of Milliken's Bend, which is where interpretation of this non-notable nonaction should probably be conducted. Battle of Lake Providence may need to be looked at too - a little more happened at Lake Providence than at Young's Point, but my Vicksburg campaign research hasn't turned up much on either fight. Hog Farm _Talk 06:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 06:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 06:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 06:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per extensive explanation by nom, lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination rationale. Possible merge into Vicksburg campaign. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- An attack that was not carried through, not a battle. If kept, rename Confederate advance towards Young's Point, but it was such a minor engagement (actually not even that) that I am dubious whether an article is needed. It might be merged with the Battle of Milliken's Bend, to which this was a side-show, with a citation of the NPS page. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle_of_Milliken's_Bend#Aftermath_and_significance (although possibly with some rewriting required) // or at least redirect (as plausible search term, if the rewrite ends up requiring more fundamental changes to the way this is described); per extensive rationale and per the details added by Peter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I guess to Battle_of_Milliken's_Bend#Aftermath_and_significance. I looked at my sources and got "rebels in small force attacked Milliken's Bend and .Young's Point... but were decisively repulsed" from a contemporary New York Times article in addition to what Hog Farm has found. No indication of more significance, no indication of notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a battle to exist, there has to be an engagement of some kind. The failure of this to materialise could be well explained in related articles. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Milliken article noted by, and per, the two merge !votes above.- wolf 11:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Part of a larger engagement the only part of notiblity here. Tirronan (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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) 16:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CO2 Partners[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The existing references are either brief mentions or company-sponsored press-releases. Google News also doesn't have high-quality publications about the company at independent reliable sources. Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs by the DPWH PH[edit]

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

Essentially containing the same content as that of Road signs in the Philippines, with same reference (DPWH). This article is thus redundant to that original article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as content seems to already exist in Road signs in the Philippines as per nom. No need for a second article to relay the same information. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well I started this article for several reasons

There's at least 1 sign in the original article which is wrongly copied from the original DPWH
The wording is not as in the original article of the DPWH
The IDs are not in the original article
several other information is NOT in the original article

While spending 6 hours to update that information to the original article - the OWNER, the person who personally claims he dictates and rules the wikipedia, kept deleting my additional information clearly pointing out he personally OWNS that page and refuses the changes/fixes/additions.

But yeah, if Wikipedia is all about dictatorship, sure delete this page, and leave the original page with the mistakes, failures and missing information and continue that the person that personally Owns wikipedia.

Good luck! I'm unregistering my account here from wikipedia if that's how you guys operate, good luck and good bye!

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly this is a duplicate article and was created in order to setting a disagreement with another editor. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment, not a viable redirect or plausible search term. I've moved annotations on the signs by the creator of this page on the old/original article. Again as per WP:OWN, no user owns an article and the user should have explained their reversion better. With that said the existence of two articles which covers the same thing is also not a way to go.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hariboneagle927: I know, my bad. I patterned the original article to Road signs in the United States and TagaSanPedroAko's list of signs on Commons, which doesn't include sign IDs. The Wikipedia entry doesn't necessarily have to include the exact same thing as the document since there are other signs (or other varieties) used in the Philippines that are not in the document. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely a duplicate of Road signs in the Philippines. Mrgenie, the creator of the article, ends up being judgmental and whiny instead of understanding the reasoning of the users involved in editing the original article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, definitely but almost a duplicate of Road signs in the Philippines. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Indeed duplicate. Lorstaking 15:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a duplicate per WP:FORK and as a attempted web hosting. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devoke water 22:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I do not see a consensus to merge or redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Segarra[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER (Master gunnery sergeant with no significant decorations) and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. The first Puerto Rican/Hispanic to do/acheive something is not notable otherwise any member of any ethnicity who does almost anything is notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being the first Puerto Rican/Hispanic to do/acheive something may not be notable to some, it is for us Puerto Ricans. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't demonstrate that WP:BIO is met here, and the claim to notability ("the first Hispanic to reach the rank of Master Gunnery Sergeant in his Military Occupational Specialty, 0451 air delivery specialist") seems rather narrow. Nick-D (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hispanics_in_the_United_States_Marine_Corps#Highest-ranking_enlisted_personnel where the tenuous achievement will appear in context. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hispanics_in_the_United_States_Marine_Corps#Highest-ranking_enlisted_personnel - I agree with Andrew that the article & section indicated would be the proper place to cover this individual rather than as an separate article. However, I don't think there is anything actually needed to merge at this point, as the information present here is already included in the target article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet requirement for WP:BIO.Looper5920 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even with the redirect option, it's not much for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge as identified above. Intothat darkness 02:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing that WP:SIGCOV is met from any of the sources in the article. A WP:BEFORE didn't yield any significant sources (only mentions). TJMSmith (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not believe a redirect is merited either as there are hundreds of Occupational Specialties in the Marine Corps, so being the first in situation is incredibly narrowly construed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First person of a particular ethnicity to reach a particular rank in a particular speciality? Oh please! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick D. Cavalryman (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or redirect, doesn't seems to meet BIO and the 'first' is rather specific. oppose a merger as undue, though no opposition to a redirect. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Valley Division. WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zediker, California[edit]

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

Starting at the tail end of the alphabet in Fresno County, we have this rail location; at least, that's what the article and topos say. I would have prodded this but for the large number of GHits, but from what I can see they are all street names or surnames: Zedikers were among the earliest settlers in the county, and they show up all over the legal landscape. Mangoe (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think this rail line (the Fresno Interurban District) exists anymore, am looking for a place to redirect to (or perhaps create an article on this branch of the Santa Fe). Zediker was part of the "Fresno Interurban District" line which included (in order from West to East, at least as of 1979): Hammond, Cincotta, Bartonette, Cameo, Burness, Fairview, Big Bunch, Zediker, Riverbend, Elk, and Belmont Ave. None seem individually notable. (Map of this line:[33])--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I propose all the articles listed in my prior comment be redirected to Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Valley Division, which I've just started.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Valley Division - this isn't a notable location by any means. If any of the others above are not already at AFD, they can probably be boldly redirected to there as well. Hog Farm _Talk 01:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected all the ones i linked above, and removed them from the county template.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PetCode[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article on a non notable organization founded in 2020 which fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE search shows hits in sources which can be best described as sponsored posts & mere announcements. Celestina007 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Article has the strong WP:PROMO feel of a public relations exercise. KidAd talk 00:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator arguments. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australia national soccer team results (unofficial matches)[edit]

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

Complete failure of WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These unofficial matches are notable as they were part of tours and probably would be in the Australian newspapers as Australia did have these tours due to being in a far away land that not many European countries would go too. HawkAussie (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These matches are notable and were talk of the time, even if not "official" for different reasons. For a country far away like Australia where the main sport is definitely not soccer (especially in earlier years), having a club from Mandatory Palestine or even an England C team come on tour is a big event. --SuperJew (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons stated above which emphasise the importance of such a list in the context of the Australian national team Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all the reasons above. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify to User:Davey2010/Nu-Venture. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nu-Venture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Coverage on this company is limited to WP:ROUTINE local news articles on route changes and occasionally anti social behaviour. Fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per the very first AFD - Certainly one of the top 5 bus operators in Kent. Although the sources I've added aren't brilliant IMHO notabilty is there and certainly meets WP:BASIC. –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While "top 5 bus operators in Kent" isn’t nothing I don’t believe its major enough of an achievement for the company to bypass the requirement for significant in depth sources. There was also the 2nd AfD that was incorrectly closed as no consensus when no editors !voted Keep. SK2242 (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately publishers have a tendency to delete their articles (case proven with KOL) and I've witnessed this with the Irish Mirror too so it does happen so just because there's nothing online now doesn't mean there wasn't something a few years ago. Anyway I've found this and [34] which I would say ever so slightly push the article towards being notable. I still maintain the company is notable but it's hard to prove that point when like I say news companies delete their news articles. –Davey2010^Talk 21:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. But in this case the first source is only a brief mention, the second source is more than that but coverage is mainly of a bus fire which would fall under WP:ROUTINE. SK2242 (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is however IMHO a mention is better than nothing at all, Press reader has tons of coverage on the company] however they're all local. I did find a brief mention on the Telegraph however the contents of that were pasted from WikiTravel/Wikivoyage.

Still, by a bare minimum I believe there's some notability there although by a very bare minimum. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Pressreader because URL messes text up. > http://www.pressreader.com/search?query="nu-venture"&languages=en&groupBy=Language&hideSimilar=0&type=1&state=1

Move to User:Davey2010/Nu-Venture where I can continue to improve the article and source where necessary - Article wouldn't be moved unless significant sources pop up which if they did I'd submit via Draft first. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's reply to Davey2010. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 09:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete edit to include draftify option or Draftify We're fairly strict on article about companies/organizations and the criteria for establishing notability is strict and goes way beyond BASIC. I am unable to locate any deep or 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 WP:NCORP. draftify As per WP:ATD, Davey2010 wants to search for sources and otherwise improve the article if possible. No probs for it to be moved to Drafts. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Restored to draft in lieu of G4. Otherwise meets G4, but since it was in draft space, I'm fine returning it there. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damed Imanov[edit]

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

There appears to be irregularities with the article history and deletion discussion. If the article was not about an encyclopedic person, then it could not exist in 4 other languages, it would be correct to reconsider the discussion.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

procedural close this isn't a real AFD nom, it's the opposite and the nom should read WP:AFD. The fact that something exists on another project is entirely irrelevant. CUPIDICAE💕 18:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep [35] meets the GNG, I think. the article seems okay. this link is a bio about hus birthday and personal information. User:Blackariteam 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/21/business/faa-boeing-777-engines.html

[2] "Sheffield gets electric scooters". 23 November 2010. Retrieved 2021-02-21 – via news.bbc.co.uk.

[3] Sheffield, University of (7 July 2016). "Lizzie the elephant: how an elephant captured the heart of a city - Archive - News archive - The University of Sheffield". www.sheffield.ac.uk. Retrieved 2021-02-21.

[1]

[1]

[2]