Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 16	January 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle, California[edit]

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

PROD contested by @WereSpielChequers:. I didn't make my PROD clear enough, as it sounded like I was saying this was only a school now. What I meant to say was that there never seems to have been anything at this site besides the Eagle school. The topos show an isolated school here with no community around. Not in Gudde's California place names so far as I can tell. There's a GNIS entry for an Eagle School in Monterey County, but none for an Eagle community. Searching in Google books and newspapers.com is difficult due to the common nature of the name, but while I can find coverage for the school, I can find nothing suggesting a community at this site. There have been multiple instances of articles created by this same page creator claiming non-communities to be "former settlements", such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/18 Mile House, California (a literal house) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levee Spur, California. From my research, this seems to be a similar case: a non-community place sourced to the Durham book passed off as a former community. Another editor has managed to get ahold of a copy of Durham and has confirmed that many of these stubs sourced only to Durham misrepresent the source, which does not call them communities. Hog Farm _Talk 23:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 23:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 23:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim this is "a former settlement" or a "town" has no basis in the source whatsoever. Reywas92^Talk 23:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: GEOFEAT points to GNG for places without legal recognition and this does not have multiple IS RS with SIGCOV. TimothyBlue (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:GNG Jenyire2 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 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) 00:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LiveWired Ministries[edit]

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

A short lived organization that was never notable. Mainly the product of WP:OR. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims in the article that it meets WP:GNG, my search did not find anything. Jeepday (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:GNG Jenyire2 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 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) Northern Escapee (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karlovich[edit]

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

After I removed all the entries that refer to Karlovich as a patronymic and not as a surname as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandrovna, the page only lists one person, to which it should be redirected instead. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karlovich is also a very plausible Anglicisation of the names Karlović, Karłowicz and Carlovich (the name of Tomás Carlovich) – hey, you can even view them as the same surname just spelt differently. I would much prefer if it these are prominently linked from the page Karlovich, whatever other content it may have – this will not work if we leave it to the search engine. Also, the Ukrainian chess player might currently be the only person with this surname we've got an article for, but this will sooner or later change (there are potentially notable people like ru:Карлович, Владислав-Фома Михайлович or ~~ru:Карлович, Владислав-Фома Михайлович~~ ru:Карлович, Антон Михайлович). – Uanfala (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uanfala: The two linked pages on the Russian Wikipedia are the same. Is that intentional? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  - Ooops, corrected. – Uanfala (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. I don't believe there is any requirement to include more than one example name-holder on a surname article: retaining this stub makes it easier for an editor to expand it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No difference than the other list. The other list show who has the name as their first name, or as their last name, and those who have it as a nickname, and even fictional characters. I don't see any reason not to list those who have this as their middle name. Dream Focus 21:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that's not a middle name, but a patronymic. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the difference is what exactly? Its part of their name, and its in the middle. Dream Focus 21:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - A person is basically never referred to by their patronymic, so it is very unlikely that a reader searching for this is interested in any of the people with this patronymic. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: that is an incorrect statement in Eastern Europe, where all these names come from. I had to refer to all my teachers and fellow students by patronymics, even if they had to be invented. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: I meant that the patronymic is almost never used exclusively, and never in formal contexts. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, 1234qwer1234qwer4. While I admit my knowledge base on this is from college Russian classes and not first-hand experience, I was taught that patronymics are much more likely to be used in formal contexts. Is that incorrect, in your experience? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're right that patronymics together with the given name are much more likely to be used in formal contexts, but referring to somebody as "Petrovich" or "Karlovich" means you're probably quite close friends, so an individual patronymic is very unlikely to be seriously used by a reader to search for a notable person. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per all above. Setreis (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Karlović as a spelling variation of the same name. BD2412 T 19:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument that there is only one name rests on a fundamental misconception. It is very possible that a person is known by their patronymic and not their full name and that would be how a user would search for them. It is therefore a valid disambiguation page and should be retained. There are already "See also" links between the various spellings so I don't see the need or utility for mergine or redirecting. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind providing an example? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:56, 27 January 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. Daniel (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dambulla Viiking in 2020[edit]

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

CONTENT FORK, ~~COI~~, SPAM and PROMOTION GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed my COI point, but also to be considered are TOOSOON. GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the following related pages because of the same; please indicate a preference at these discussions GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC):[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete The article may be created if it passes WP:NSEASONS but it still faces the same scrutiny any other article on Wikipedia faces. You can not bring up an article on Wikipedia as a reason to keep another article of similar content. Notability is not inherited from subject to subject simply because they are similar. When a presumed notable article is created it may be brought up for AfD and will then be judged according to the Notability Guideline (See WP:N). To say the article should never have been written would be wrong and to say it should stay simply because it meets an SNG is wrong. Everything hinges on proving it meets the basic Notability Guideline. This does not meet said guideline and therefore does not belong. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, the article passes the notability according to WP:NSEASON. I don't know similar articles of other leagues also exist for a long time but they are not deleted. For example, Islamabad United in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020. Lahore Qalandars, Karachi Kings, Peshawar Zalmi, Quetta Gladiators, Multan Sultans in 2016, 17, 18, 19, 20. Plus, Mumbai Indians, Delhi Capitals, Royal Challengers Bangalore, Kolkata Knight Riders in 2010, 2011, 2012,...., 2020 and much more. All are present. Then why not these? What more I've to say is that the 2020 team article shouldn't be merged to main team article because 2020 team article contains an overview of only one and particularseason whereas the main team article contains information about the overview of all the seasons. So, it's not a content forking as the main article presents information about "all" seasons whereas the 2020 article presents information about only "one" season. COI would be valid if anyone of contributors would work for the league. I doubt Churot may be working for LPL 😂. How does it seem to COI? Could you explain? Regarding PROMOTION, it would be valid only iff we were promoting the subject but all the information present in the article are sourced, though mostly from ESPN Cricinfo. It's written according to NPOV. I see no advertising, advocacy, propaganda, promotion in the whole article. At last SPAM comes which says Spam is the inappropriate addition of content to Wikipedia with the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization, individual or idea, and is considered harmful to the encyclopedia. So, can you point out where the article is being promoted or publicized? I see spam nowhere. No spamming external links, no advertisement and no references promoting the subject or author. So, all the issues of nominations are baseless and pointless. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 07:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although the series is brand new but sources confirm the next season to be held in July 2021. [1] [2] [3]. The article passes the notability according to WP:NSEASON. It's not a content forking as the main article presents information about "all" seasons whereas the 2020 article presents information about only "one" season. COI would be valid if anyone of contributors would work for the league. I doubt User:Churot may be working for LPL 😂. How does it seem to be COI? Could you explain? Regarding PROMOTION, it would be valid only iff we were promoting the subject but all the informations present in the article are sourced, though mostly from ESPN Cricinfo. It's written according to NPOV. I see no advertising, advocacy, propaganda and promotion in the whole article. At last SPAM comes, which says Spam is the inappropriate addition of content to Wikipedia with the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization, individual or idea, and is considered harmful to the encyclopedia. So, can you point out where the article is being promoted or publicized? I see spam nowhere. No spamming external links, no advertisement and no references promoting the subject or author. So, all the issues of the nomination are baseless and pointless. Empire AS ^Talk! 03:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cmnt The whole body of these are articles as presented are SPAM. You don't have to work for the entity to SPAM Wikipedia. Fans do it all the time. Right now, these X in 2020 articles are huge content forks and unnecessary. They are also undeniably TOO SOON. GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spam? But the subject is not promoted or publicized any where in the whole article. Everything is written according to NPOV. I don't see any text or content where the subject is seen to be promoted. You say that "X in 2020" are content forks of "X" but I disagree. There's a lot of difference between X and X in 2020. X (all seasons' overview) and X in 2020 (one season overview) aren't same at all. As I said above, no advocacy, propaganda or advertising in the whole article, therefore not PROMOTIONAL. Thank you.

Keep Meets standards in my opinion. Not sure why this was nominated for deletion in the first place. Onursides (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Literally falls under WP:NSEASON. Nominator has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the policies mentioned and should probably have cited WP:IDONTLIKEIT to make their intentions clear. Top level of T20 cricket in Sri Lanka. Many sources in the article. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 00:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm not unhappy about keeping this for now, with the proviso that if the team never plays another season that the article be merged. These sorts of articles are prevalent across a wide range of sports and it seems reasonable that we have them here. I can understand the argument about it being a fork, but I think I'd give this 9 months or so and see what the situation is after that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:23, 23 January 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 reasons that this was spam, promotional, or a content fork merely for being a team's season page were rebutted by reference to analogous season articles and the NPOV-tone of the actual article text. The only non-keep !vote referencing the actual sourcing categorically rejects all of them, despite multiple sources being from prima facie reliable sources (e.g. ESPN Cricinfo, Ceylon Today. There's also support for merging if additional seasons are not held, which is probably a good idea, but that's a discussion for the future. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kandy Tuskers in 2020[edit]

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

CONTENT FORK, ~~COI~~, SPAM and PROMOTION GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the following related pages because of the same; please indicate a preference at these discussions GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC):[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I don't think that there is any mistake regarding creating this article.My opinion is not delete.(Fade258 (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Merge and Redirect into the team article. ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 14:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reason or argument given. Empire AS ^Talk! 07:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete The article may be created if it passes WP:NSEASONS but it still faces the same scrutiny any other article on Wikipedia faces. You can not bring up an article on Wikipedia as a reason to keep another article of similar content. Notability is not inherited from subject to subject simply because they are similar. When a presumed notable article is created it may be brought up for AfD and will then be judged according to the Notability Guideline (See WP:N). To say the article should never have been written would be wrong and to say it should stay simply because it meets an SNG is wrong. Everything hinges on proving it meets the basic Notability Guideline. This does not meet said guideline and therefore does not belong. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, the article passes the notability according to WP:NSEASON. I don't know similar articles of other leagues also exist for a long time but they are not deleted. For example, Islamabad United in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020. Lahore Qalandars, Karachi Kings, Peshawar Zalmi, Quetta Gladiators, Multan Sultans in 2016, 17, 18, 19, 20. Plus, Mumbai Indians, Delhi Capitals, Royal Challengers Bangalore, Kolkata Knight Riders in 2010, 2011, 2012,...., 2020 and much more. All are present. Then why not these? What more I've to say is that the 2020 team article shouldn't be merged to main team article because 2020 team article contains an overview of only one and particularseason whereas the main team article contains information about the overview of all the seasons. So, it's not a content forking as the main article presents information about "all" seasons whereas the 2020 article presents information about only "one" season. COI would be valid if anyone of contributors would work for the league. I doubt Churot may be working for LPL 😂. How does it seem to COI? Could you explain? Regarding PROMOTION, it would be valid only iff we were promoting the subject but all the information present in the article are sourced, though mostly from ESPN Cricinfo. It's written according to NPOV. I see no advertising, advocacy, propaganda, promotion in the whole article. At last SPAM comes which says Spam is the inappropriate addition of content to Wikipedia with the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization, individual or idea, and is considered harmful to the encyclopedia. So, can you point out where the article is being promoted or publicized? I see spam nowhere. No spamming external links, no advertisement and no references promoting the subject or author. So, all the issues of nominations are baseless and pointless. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 07:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although the series is brand new but sources confirm the next season to be held in July 2021. [4] [5] [6]. The article passes the notability according to WP:NSEASON. It's not a content forking as the main article presents information about "all" seasons whereas the 2020 article presents information about only "one" season. COI would be valid if anyone of contributors would work for the league. I doubt User:Churot may be working for LPL 😂. How does it seem to be COI? Could you explain? Regarding PROMOTION, it would be valid only iff we were promoting the subject but all the informations present in the article are sourced, though mostly from ESPN Cricinfo. It's written according to NPOV. I see no advertising, advocacy, propaganda and promotion in the whole article. At last SPAM comes, which says Spam is the inappropriate addition of content to Wikipedia with the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization, individual or idea, and is considered harmful to the encyclopedia. So, can you point out where the article is being promoted or publicized? I see spam nowhere. No spamming external links, no advertisement and no references promoting the subject or author. So, all the issues of the nomination are baseless and pointless. Empire AS ^Talk! 03:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The whole body of these are articles as presented are SPAM. You don't have to work for the entity to SPAM Wikipedia. Fans do it all the time. Right now, these X in 2020 articles are huge content forks and unnecessary. They are PROMOTIONAL as a body of work. They are also undeniably TOO SOON. GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spam? But the subject is not promoted or publicized any where in the whole article. Everything is written according to NPOV. I don't see any text or content where the subject is seen to be promoted. You say that "X in 2020" are content forks of "X" but I disagree. There's a lot of difference between X and X in 2020. X (all seasons' overview) and X in 2020 (one season overview) aren't same at all. As I said above, no advocacy, propaganda or advertising in the whole article, therefore not PROMOTIONAL. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 12:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm not unhappy about keeping this for now, with the proviso that if the team never plays another season that the article be merged. These sorts of articles are prevalent across a wide range of sports and it seems reasonable that we have them here. I can understand the argument about it being a fork, but I think I'd give this 9 months or so and see what the situation is after that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:23, 23 January 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 reasons that this was spam, promotional, or a content fork merely for being a team's season page were rebutted by reference to analogous season articles and the NPOV-tone of the actual article text. The only non-keep !vote referencing the actual sourcing categorically rejects all of them, despite multiple sources being from prima facie reliable sources (e.g. ESPN Cricinfo, Yahoo! Cricket, Sky Sports. There's also support for merging if additional seasons are not held, which is probably a good idea, but that's a discussion for the future. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo Kings in 2020[edit]

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

(Add missing reason(s)): CONTENT FORK, ~~COI,~~ SPAM, PROMOTION, TOO SOON GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the following related pages because of the same; please indicate a preference at these discussions GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC):[reply]

GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete The article may be created if it passes WP:NSEASONS but it still faces the same scrutiny any other article on Wikipedia faces. You can not bring up an article on Wikipedia as a reason to keep another article of similar content. Notability is not inherited from subject to subject simply because they are similar. When a subject is presumed notable and an article is created it may be brought up for AfD. It will then be judged according to the Notability Guideline (See WP:N). To say the article should never have been written would be wrong and to say it should stay simply because it meets a SNG is wrong. Everything hinges on proving it meets the basic Notability Guideline. This does not meet said guideline and therefore does not belong. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, the article passes the notability according to WP:NSEASON. I don't know similar articles of other leagues also exist for a long time but they are not deleted. For example, Islamabad United in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020. Lahore Qalandars, Karachi Kings, Peshawar Zalmi, Quetta Gladiators, Multan Sultans in 2016, 17, 18, 19, 20. Plus, Mumbai Indians, Delhi Capitals, Royal Challengers Bangalore, Kolkata Knight Riders in 2010, 2011, 2012,...., 2020 and much more. All are present. Then why not these? What more I've to say is that the 2020 team article shouldn't be merged to main team article because 2020 team article contains an overview of only one and particularseason whereas the main team article contains information about the overview of all the seasons. So, it's not a content forking as the main article presents information about "all" seasons whereas the 2020 article presents information about only "one" season. COI would be valid if anyone of contributors would work for the league. I doubt Churot may be working for LPL 😂. How does it seem to COI? Could you explain? Regarding PROMOTION, it would be valid only iff we were promoting the subject but all the information present in the article are sourced, though mostly from ESPN Cricinfo. It's written according to NPOV. I see no advertising, advocacy, propaganda, promotion in the whole article. At last SPAM comes which says Spam is the inappropriate addition of content to Wikipedia with the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization, individual or idea, and is considered harmful to the encyclopedia. So, can you point out where the article is being promoted or publicized? I see spam nowhere. No spamming external links, no advertisement and no references promoting the subject or author. So, all the issues of nominations are baseless and pointless. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 07:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would be OK with a Redirect at this time, as nom. This was supposed to be part of the bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galle Gladiators in 2020‎‎; This is TOOSOON and non-NOTABLE for a new league/team. Maybe later. Regards, 02:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment although the series is brand new but sources confirm the next season to be held in July 2021. [7] [8] [9]. The article passes the notability according to WP:NSEASON. It's not a content forking as the main article presents information about "all" seasons whereas the 2020 article presents information about only "one" season. COI would be valid if anyone of contributors would work for the league. I doubt User:Churot may be working for LPL 😂. How does it seem to be COI? Could you explain? Regarding PROMOTION, it would be valid only iff we were promoting the subject but all the informations present in the article are sourced, though mostly from ESPN Cricinfo. It's written according to NPOV. I see no advertising, advocacy, propaganda and promotion in the whole article. At last SPAM comes, which says Spam is the inappropriate addition of content to Wikipedia with the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization, individual or idea, and is considered harmful to the encyclopedia. So, can you point out where the article is being promoted or publicized? I see spam nowhere. No spamming external links, no advertisement and no references promoting the subject or author. So, all the issues of the nomination are baseless and pointless. Empire AS ^Talk! 03:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The whole body of these are articles as presented are SPAM. You don't have to work for the entity to SPAM Wikipedia. Fans do it all the time. Right now, these X in 2020 articles are huge content forks and unnecessary. They are PROMOTIONAL as a body of work. They are also undeniably TOO SOON. GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spam? But the subject is not promoted or publicized any where in the whole article. Everything is written according to NPOV. I don't see any text or content where the subject is seen to be promoted. You say that "X in 2020" are content forks of "X" but I disagree. There's a lot of difference between X and X in 2020. X (all seasons' overview) and X in 2020 (one season overview) aren't same at all. As I said above, no advocacy, propaganda or advertising in the whole article, therefore not PROMOTIONAL. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 11:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm not unhappy about keeping this for now, with the proviso that if the team never plays another season that the article be merged. These sorts of articles are prevalent across a wide range of sports and it seems reasonable that we have them here. I can understand the argument about it being a fork, but I think I'd give this 9 months or so and see what the situation is after that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:22, 23 January 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 general consensus is that the article should be cleaned up instead of deleted, and indeed has been done to some extent per WP:HEY. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Wallenfels[edit]

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

Article seems to be about a non-notable actress that appears to have already been deleted once because the creater copied the content from another source. The subject's main notability is that she appeared in two episodes of an American television series (Twin Peaks) as a child actress in 1990. Appeared as an extra in two other films and in one independent film in 2004 and is currently an artistic director of a non-profit organization in Portland, Oregon. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG (greatly) in my opinion. ExRat (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC) ExRat (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Women-related deletion discussions. ExRat (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Television-related deletion discussions. ExRat (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the People-related deletion discussions. ExRat (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Her role in Twin Peaks may be small but it’s notable and the character has cult status, especially in the pilot episode. Entertainment Weekly even picked her role as one of "The 30 best things about the Twin Peaks pilot". (https://ew.com/tv/twin-peaks-30th-anniversary-pilot/) (no. 24) Regularly referenced in TV and Twin Peaks retrospectives. I could see someone viewing the pilot and coming to Wiki to look her up as I did. Her two episodes are both famous David Lynch ones and there are newsprint articles about her. Role in cult movie Dogfight too. Her later career as a choreographer is not without note either. She’s staged some impressive productions and not just in Oregon, and nationally, in Los Angeles and off-Broadway in New York, including at Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles ~~New York’s Beacon Theatre~~. For example, in 2017 she directed "Appropriate”, ~~at The Beacon Theatre in New York City,~~ a play about racism and white privilege, which was written by Branden Jacobs-Jenkins. The play got write ups about tackling race, for example, but there are several notable stage productions and she has very impressive theatre and academic credentials overall. Other examples is that she co-directed Everybody_(play) and was the choreography on Chay Yew's play A Beautiful Country at the Mark Taper Forum, and even staged a production of Van Morrison's Astral Weeks noted on that page. There might even be better examples, but those are just a few. Plenty of news sources and theatre mentions in Google News, many are Oregon-based but several are national, mentioned in American Theatre, etc. Citations on the page are strong and it links to some other notable pages. Note too that the article was never previously deleted. It was initially flagged for copyright but I spent several hours rewriting it and put a ton of work into this article. I think it reads well now and is well sourced. Her cult TP role plus theatre credits and citations/sources should give enough notability and cult status to pass WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. (Article creator.) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nearly all of her stage work is in regional theatre. Her tiny role in the 1991 film Dogfight is literally as "arcade girl". She had two appearances in a television series 30 years ago and among the other "30 best things about the Twin Peaks pilot" in the Entertainment Weekly article you referenced are: #11 The dancing guy in the high school, #28 Lucy's doughnut smorgasbord, #7 The Briggs family kitchen, #4 Audrey changing into her high heels at school, and #1 The bird in the opening credits. The claim that "citations" in the article are strong is not true; there are complete sections without any references. The fact that this article links to other pages is because you have recently inserted her name into other articles. ExRat (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I've tried to address all points and concerns raised, as follows:

I think I only added her name to Dogfight per sources and Tacoma/Washington pages. It was already on TP pages and Morrison page, I just linked to it.
It shouldn't matter if the show is 30 years old, it's remained an iconic cult classic and was spun off into movies and other media even and was revived in 2017 (without Wallenfells but she could return yet in another season), still discussed in popular culture and academia, and is likely to return again.
Entertainment Weekly did not pick everything in the pilot or every cast member and character (those other things you mentioned may sound or may be implied to be trivial, but they're not - they're all really iconic elements of the show's famous mise-en-scene), but it doesn't matter what else they referenced only that they didn't list every character but did choose Wallenfels's character.
Both episodes she appears in are feature-length and famous, 2 of only 5 directed by Lynch himself (pilot and Season 2 premiere), and one was even a movie on VHS in Europe. They're not just any 2 episodes.
Much of her theatre work is regional, yes, but not all of it as I've noted, and some of those plays she directed are noteworthy and they or their playwrights have their own pages.
I maintain her significant regional and national theatre work combined with cult TP status and numerous sources warrants her page. I've listed out all I can think of for now (Edit - expanded this reply and I've added some more sources), so will let you all come to a consensus. Couldn't a {notability} tag been added to the article instead? It would have sufficed here, to give more time to gather sources, rather than jumping to this deletion attempt. Also, the last speedy one also shouldn't count or be mentioned as it was unrelated issue, quickly rewritten and resolved.
HistoricalAccountings (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's been a while since I've been on AfD, but I've never seen an article with as many substantive references up here before. If it was just her acting stuff it would be a tougher decision, but her career in theater seems to plainly justify the article. Abeg92contribs 20:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Substantive references? Have you looked at them? Most of them are about Twin Peaks, where she is merely name-checked, and that's all. The others are from regional theatre booklets and websites (like this, as an example), and again, are nearly all just name-checks without any sort of substantial information about the subject whatsoever. Then there are sites like imdb (5 credits: one for Twin Peaks, one for a bit part as "Protestor #1", another bit part as "Arcade girl", another without any role listed), her own personal site, a contact site for her job as public relations and marketing specialist at Norris Beggs & Simpson Cos. listed at the Portland Business Journal (pay four bucks to view it), more sites like this that merely name-check. Then there is this?? Flooding an article with (mostly really horrible) references that simply state the subject's name and/or profession is hardly substantial referencing. ExRat (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also references to major publications and respected academic and theatre journals: University of Portland, Oregon ArtsWatch, AMERICAN THEATRE, BroadwayWorld, New York Times, Variety, LA Times, Willamette Week, Entertainment Weekly, Limelight Editions, Theatre Communications Group, and The Beacon. You've cherrypicked and highlighted a couple of weaker references. The other 30+ are much stronger. Yes, because she's a choreographer/director some of the articles do only mention her briefly, the reviews focusing more on the actors, but she's still notably referenced, and a lot of them are much more detailed, praising her direction in detail and praising her addressing racism and tackling other issues.

Again, I maintain her significant regional and national theatre work combined with cult television status warrants her inclusion.

Furthermore, I'm not - at this stage - now entirely convinced this discussion is entirely objective.

I still think a simple {notability} tag could have been added to the article and would have sufficed here, to give more time to gather sources, rather than jumping to this deletion attempt. The last speedy attempt also shouldn't be mentioned as in my opinion it sways opinion and doesn't really qualify this as a "2nd nomination" as it was an unrelated (to notability) issue, quickly rewritten and resolved.

HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, none of those references are at all substantive whatsoever. Nearly all are passing mentions in articles that aren't even about her; many of which simply mention her name. I am sorry that you feel as though I am not being objective. That simply isn't the case. I think have stated my issues rather clearly. ExRat (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The way you type "nearly all" and bold and italicize all is one example of language that doesn't feel objective. I'm not accusing you of anything but find your repeated insistence strange, especially as soon as someone says Keep you leap in combatively to strongly try to discredit their vote/opinion. In turn, I then feel I must defend the article. Re: sources - they are all about her, productions she directed or appeared in. Yes, some articles are mentions, some are more detailed. As I said above "because she's a choreographer/director some of the articles do only mention her briefly, the reviews focusing more on the actors, but she's still notably referenced, and a lot of them are much more detailed, praising her direction in detail and praising her addressing racism and tackling other issues." I still feel there was no need for AFD here, but a page tag or discussion on the talk page. I really think we should both step aside and either let the closer decide or others weigh in. HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ExRat, I am going through the references, one at a time. The sixth reference I checked, Fall play "Appropriate" to address racism and white privilege, is 17 paragraphs long, and six of those paragraphs address Wallenfels. Why shouldn't we think that means that your claim that "none of those references are at all substantive whatsoever" was either a wild exagerration, or shows that you did not actually thoroughly check all the references. When an article has lots of references they don't have to ALL be detailed. So, please be more careful. Geo Swan (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ExRat, DramaWatch: Goal-oriented theater at Portland Playhouse is 16 paragraphs long, 8 of which address Wallenfels. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for going through and checking the references, Geo Swan. If you think any need to be changed or removed, please go ahead or let me know. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion and adequate sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article contains no sources asserting subject has directed a play at NYC's Beacon Theater; source "The Beacon" is the U of Portland student newspaper and it makes no such Broadway-bound claim in the cite provided. All three provided sources say this was mounted at the Mago Hunt center in Portland. Choreography at the Mark Taper Forum is impressive, but no Broadway directing credits here. BusterD (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for clarifying this, BusterD. Have updated talk above and left as strikethrough. Beacon error was mine due to similar name. Her regional stagework is in Portland and other places in Oregon, and much of her national stagework seems to be in Los Angeles with some off-Broadway New York productions too and Seattle and around Washington.-- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to point out again, nominator titled page incorrectly. This is not a second AFD nomination. Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Wallenfels doesn't exist. Previous nom was only a speedy tag, which was removed and resolved once article was rewritten due to potential copyright. I left a note on talk page per helpdesk advice. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure if this is allowed (and I know it's after the time), but if it is I nominate this for a speedy close. It's been open for 10 days now, with only one delete "per nom" with no explanation. The rest are keeps or comments, more keeps than deletes even if you exclude the nominator and me (article creator). I don't think it should ever have been nominated. A simple notability tag and talk page discussion would have sufficed. The nominator mistakenly mistitled this and submitted it as a "2nd nomination" when it's only first (helpdesk told me previous speedy tag/copyright doesn't count). As another user pointed out above, the nominator also failed to check all the references (40+ on the page). I really think at this stage this should be withdrawn or speedily closed as Keep, though I respect closer's decision - this is only my suggestion based on all of the above. Thank you. I really do feel Wallenfels has several claims to notability - career as child actress/Twin Peaks cult status AND later career in choreography/stage direction - which makes her an interesting and notable figure.-- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You don't get to vote twice. It is against Wikipedia policy. I also did WP:BEFORE and did, in fact, check the references. The two "substantive" references mentioned above by Geo Swan are articles in local publications (University of Portand's The Beacon and Oregon Artswatch) about two plays performed in regional theatre (Appropriate at the Margo Hunt theatre, and The Wolves at the Portland Playhouse). The focus of both articles is on the plays, not Wallenfels, and are hardly "substantial" as each consists of brief interviews with Wallenfels (and others) about the productions and largely not about Wallenfels herself. I understand that you are invested in keeping the article, but can you please stop belaboring the same points? ExRat (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "I understand that you are invested in keeping the article, but can you please stop belaboring the same points?" Likewise. There are no strong arguments to delete this article and it feels like you're trying to deflect from the fact you didn't check references and incorrectly nominated this, plus miscategorized it as a 2nd nom. It's not a second vote, just a suggestion. The references are fine. And may I suggest you retitle the article if you aren't going to withdraw it, as previously explained it's not a "2nd nomination" per helpdesk's assessment. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You literally have voted twice in this discussion. ExRat (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was a cumulative suggestion, not an attempt to lodge two votes. It's the same username, so the closer could not interpret as an attempt to trick anyone, and your continued insistence is again questionable, as is your objectivity as I've noted before. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 00:38, 28 January 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 21:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bondurant's Pharmacy[edit]

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

Non-notable former local landmark that only received coverage by local media. The only non-local reference is from Roadside America, which, as a website for listing quirky tourist attractions (many of which don't have Wikipedia pages), is decisively not significant coverage. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 04:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-11 ✗ deleted

Comment Appears in at least three books, [10], [11], and "The Well-Built Elephant - A Tribute to American Eccentricity" by J.C. Andrews, 1984. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so the new sources can be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comments on the new sources:

Weird Kentucky: Many of the other entries in the book are not notable either. I would not consider this book a notable source, as it is essentially a published version to the pre-existing Roadside America source, in that it is a listing of quirky, not-particularly-notable local landmarks.
Kentucky Off The Beaten Path: A travel guide that lists countless locations in Kentucky, many of which are not notable. If this is a notable enough source for the pharmacy, given that the other sources aren't notable enough either imho, it is also enough to get any random hotel or restaurant featured in it its own page.
The Well-Built Elephant: I cannot find an online copy of this book, but it sounds like another book similar to Weird Kentucky or Roadside America. As such, the same issues I have with those two sources apply to it as well.

As such, I stick by my decision to want this article deleted, even with the new sources. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 02:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would be notable if it was on the NRHP, otherwise not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the hurdle this subject needs to pass is WP:NBUILD "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." I don't see "significant in-depth coverage" nor did my research find any. Jeepday (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack WP:SIGCOV Jenyire2 (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Herald-Leader article (currently deadlinked, unfortunately) in addition to Rick Sebak coverage push this one over the edge for me. Abeg92contribs 20:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Interesting building, reminds me of The Bulldog Cafe in LA. LostLogin (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Note -- Do any of these links help at all?

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/the-monroe-moosnick-medical-and-science-museum-lexington-kentucky
https://www.countryliving.com/life/travel/g19418962/unusual-buildings-in-america/
https://archive.curbed.com/2017/1/27/14404970/weird-buildings-architecture-united-states
https://www.thetravel.com/america-weird-strange-buildings-visit/
https://books.google.com/books?id=TU-bDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT281&dq=%22Bondurant%27s+Pharmacy%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPt6fM3LnuAhV0SxUIHac3AxQQ6AEwA3oECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Bondurant's%20Pharmacy%22%20-wikipedia&f=false
Comment No, they do not, at least in my opinion. Atlas Obscura covers many topics, including many non-notable ones, and would only be notable coverage in conjunction with other sources. The Country Living, Curbed, and Travel articles are all akin to the pre existing Roadside America source, in that they cover quirky, but not particularly notable, locations in a clickbaity way. And the Uncle John's book is a trivia book; using it as a primary reference would be akin to using the Guinness Book of World Records as a primary reference. If the article had other, more notable sources, they might help, but on their own and with the already lackluster sources it has so far, they do not imho. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 18:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I still vote keep because I think it's cool and is the sort of interesting little thing I like stumbling across on Wikipedia or any encyclopaedia but if not, could maybe an article about quirky roadside attractions/unusually-shaped buildings (in USA and international) be created to include this and others? Do these articles exist and as an alternative to deletion if it comes to that, could this article be merged into the new or existing article? Just my 2 cents. --LostLogin (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article for that type of thing, novelty architecture, which is linked to from this article (using different wording). A "keep" argument that amounts to WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. ~EdGl talk 22:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above but add the article image to novelty architecture. ~EdGl talk 22:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the sources availablle in the article and mentioned in this AfD, I just don't see examples of sufficiently in-depth coverage that would be needed for passing WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still say keep but merge if not, don't delete. And if you do add its picture to novelty architecture article, also add short passage about it and its history, plus a picture of what it looks like now (a margarita) as well as what it used to look like.--LostLogin (talk) 17:04, 30 January 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 Arkanoid. Daniel (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arkanoid Controller[edit]

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

No evidence this is notable. There are two sources, One is a wayback machine link to a blank gamespot page. The other is a link to GameFaqs, which is user-generated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One review by RS Nintendo Life and that's it in terms of significant coverage. SK2242 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And it turns out the review is for a different product. Only strengthens the case for deletion. SK2242 (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arkanoid#Conversions. I'd say delete, but we have an ok target to redirect. I am fine with Delete though. No coverage, just one of hundreds of early console era third party accessories. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arkanoid per Ferret. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arkanoid. Logical merge target and this article doesn't meet the WP:GNG for a stand alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:08, 24 January 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) 00:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshitomi Hideaki[edit]

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

The article appears to be a hoax. Shaolin Punk (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shaolin Punk (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shaolin Punk (talk) 18:54, 17 January 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 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BEFORE found nothing useful. Google search results in names unrelated to the article. Enjoyer of World — Talk 11:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found nothing, there are no other language linked articles. While there are a list of reference, there is no indication of what references should support what content. Jeepday (talk) 12:11, 23 January 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 January 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources used are largely primary. Jenyire2 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 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) 00:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshitomi Group[edit]

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

The article appears to be a hoax. Shaolin Punk (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shaolin Punk (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shaolin Punk (talk) 18:54, 17 January 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 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of inline citations, seems non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article claims "It is one of the most powerful Japanese-based criminal groups in the United States," but my search found only a single English book reference which is a very minor mention. Jeepday (talk) 12:18, 23 January 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) 00:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Williams[edit]

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

Another lucky participant in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol who was not notable until this moment in time. WP:BLP1E applies. ... discospinster _talk 22:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 22:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 22:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 22:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage establishing notability to surpass BLP1E and WP:CRIME. Reywas92^Talk 00:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Tomaatje12 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article about the Storming of the Capital. Could be a name in a list of names of people who participated in the riot, not notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:TENYEARTEST.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is still WP:TOOSOON in light of WP:BLPCRIME but if she is proven to have attempted to sell a computer from Nancy Pelosi's office to Russian Intelligence, she may pass WP:GNG. Not sure if the boyfriend's claims are true or not. I think the article should be deleted for now or moved to a draft for now though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another non-notable person who attended the storming. JayJay^{What did I do?} 07:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage of her as a person. Geschichte (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 13:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the storming of the Capitol. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am pinging everyone who commented, so far, to draw to their attention recent reporting on important details from Williams occupation of Nacy Pelosi's office. I thought at least some of you might appreciate a heads up on reporting that might trigger you to change your mind. If true it sure undermines her claims of being a patriot. Geo Swan (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Discospinster, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, MJL, Some Dude From North Carolina, Geschichte, Darryl Kerrigan, JayJay, Reywas92, Tomaatje12, and Oaktree b:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/2021/01/18/pelosi-laptop-riley-june-williams/
https://www.wgal.com/article/woman-wanted-by-fbi-capitol-riot-claim-she-stole-pelosi-laptop-arrested-riley-williams/35251405#
https://globalnews.ca/news/7585188/riley-june-williams-arrested-nancy-pelosi-laptop/
- Couldn't care less, this is still fleeting news about a person known for this one event: the events of Capitol storming and its aftermath are notable, not the individuals involved. I would certainly encourage expansion of the alleged crimes and their consequences at Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Notable arrests and charges or a spin-off but we should not have separate pages for biographies. Of course her claims of being a patriot are BS, but that doesn't warrant her getting her own article. Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Relevant content merged and sourced added to Aftermath_of_the_2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#January_18. Reywas92^Talk 20:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but I don't think this is a surprise. I already mentioned it above. It seems like her former romantic partner accused her of this, but that allegation has not been confirmed, and is being investigated. She has been charged with the equivalent of trespass. I think the same WP:BLPCRIME considerations apply. If she is charged, convicted and/or receives enduring coverage about the laptop theft/attempted sale, she may be notable, but at this time I continue to think it is too soon.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Still falls under WP:BLP1E so it doesn't matter. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 21:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: See, I get that everyone's really eager to document the activities of these people, but we don't need articles with the life story of every individual who was involved. ... discospinster _talk 21:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly falls under our guidelines against one event notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - We can not have an article accusing someone of a crime without a guilty verdict as it goes against our WP:BLP policies. If ad I mean If it is proven that she attempted to sell a computer from Nancy Pelosi's office to Russian Intelligence then we have a new ballgame where WP:BLP1E wouldn't apply. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is more notable than others who stormed the capitol. She is the only one accused of stealing a computer and trying to sell it to the Russians. That sets her apart from all other rioters, and makes her far more notable. Banana Republic (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Seems exceedingly unlikely that she will have lasting notability, but if that happens the article can be recreated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUSTAINED. Agree with GorillaWarfare: there's no indication this person will receive any lasting significant coverage, but if they do, this article can be recreated then. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. --GRuban (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
speedy merge/delete per WP:BLP1E plus what GorillaWarfare and Red Rock said. No further arguments needed, other than a speedy move on this one. 2601:18C:480:F40:B4C5:FFED:1B67:A5CF (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jenyire2 (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete but info on here should be saved - if officials go much further with the Russia allegations, or there's some unexpected connection to something else, it could justify her own article. Abeg92contribs 23:57, 24 January 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) 00:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Hadlow[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No significant independent coverage found in online search to satisfy WP:GNG. Only independent reference in article is a local newspaper story in which she is mentioned in passing and which is used to cite her husband's career. Military career does not meet requirements of WP:SOLDIER. Dumelow (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete first female RAF flight instructor seems the only very tenuous basis for notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jo Salter - if she was the RAF's first female aviator she would be no-question notable and someone to put up on a pedestal as an encouragement to others, but she isn't. First female flight instructor is praiseworthy but doesn't land notability by itself - and the rest of the article and sources don't demonstrate passing GNG, NPERSON, or SOLDIER. However, she was classmates with the RAF's first female pilot, Jo Salter, and is - appropriately - mentioned as such in Salter's article, so we have a reasonable redirect target available. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The RAF's first female QFI is most certainly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The RAF's first female pilot, yes. The first female instructor? I'm not so sure. At a certain point you have to draw the line when it comes to "first X". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no coverage found to establish GNG. I don't love the idea of redirecting articles on people to other people rather tangentially connected, but won't lose sleep if that's the outcome Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Necrothesp suggest you would think that "RAF's first female QFI" would be notable, but that does not seem to be the case. The hurdle is WP:BASIC "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article does not have those, nor could I find them. All the keep votes are presuming notability should exist, but there is no evidence that it does. Jeepday (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 (talk) 18:56, 24 January 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) 00:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanmashi[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 Kolma8 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's one reliable review: https://www.sify.com/movies/kanmashi-review-malayalam-pclurGbabeidf.html Kailash29792 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With all due respect, I am not sure how this 290 word review by Moviebuzz qualify to pass WP:NFILM and WP:GNG? Most of the "review" is a summary of the plot. Kolma8 (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sify is a reliable national source, the review has independent criticism and 290 words is significant content, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I accept that there is not enough reliable sources. But the film was a major theatrical release back then and had coverage in newspapers. Its hard to find the sources considering the date of release. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a flawed argument to say that we know there is no reliable sources to prove film's notability, but let's keep it anyway. Kolma8 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. @Kashmorwiki: Creating articles from database entries, to include IMDb that is not a reliable source, just proves existence not advancing notability. The result is a listing of movies to only fulfill the creation of blue links from those lists that land squarely in the middle of What Wikipedia is not (NOTGUIDE and INDISCRIMINATE) often resulting in only a "dictionary entry" with a cast listing and/or unsourced plot. The concept of Wikipedia:Verifiability, according to our sourcing policies and guidelines, is to provide evidence of notability when this is challenged. The fact that a subject may have had coverage in newspapers (if substantial coverage and not just a movie guide listing) would be a valid argument (sources out there somewhere but not currently accessible or easily found) except that merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. It should be considered that when an article contains multiple names of living people it becomes WP:BLP related subjecting it to more stringent sourcing requirements. I can't even suggest a merge or redirect (ATD) to V. M. Vinu (the article is listed there) because that BLP only has one source (of course IMDb in the "External links"), has been tagged since 2012, and it has to be considered that When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. Otr500 (talk)
Note: There needs to be some rationale to keep or find a no consensus (even if the one single source shown above is reliable giving more than a plot summary) to prevent deletion according to our deletion policy #6, #7, or #8. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no claims in the article that it passes WP:NFILM there are no references to support it meeting WP:NFOE My search does not find anything. Votes to keep do not provide arguments that meet any hurdles in WP:NFOE Jeepday (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Requires more sources. Jenyire2 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 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. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etonbury Academy[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage.

Sources in the article are from the school itself, and government reports.

BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV. There are is normal mill coverage about a construction project in local news, but no SIGCOV.

This is a nice, normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 21:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tag for cleanup or attention

Coming to this article as a regular editor of schools, I immediately have a problem with the Politically inspired press release. I will delete that as it is used as WP:PROMOTION and shows WP:BIAS in the way it selectively quotes from solid reliable sources. As to AfD, I suggest everyone reads carefully the {{AFD help}} Ofsted reference alone is a sufficient reliable source for our purposes, I am happier when more are found. So I looked and with the predecessor school there are 5 online, covering he period 2004- 2020. We are here to evaluate if sources exist, not whether they have been cited. To say it is a nice school is a WP:POV, and an unsourced statement, and really irrelevant. The phrase 'run of the mill' has no weight in a AfD discussion. In addition to what the inexperienced editors have included in this article, a focus of interest is the classification as an extended secondary school with a most unusual age range. The building project alone will have sources on contract letting, planning appraisal. As it say in the{{AFD help}} articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, this is the correct way forward. ClemRutter (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central_Bedfordshire per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N. Orville^talk 05:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Available sources sufficient to establish notability, as with any other British secondary school. Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A question regarding whether Ofsted reports should be considered independent sources demonstrating notability has been posted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ofsted school inspection repoorts for discussion. // Timothy :: t | c | a 01:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is independently sourced and proven notable. Bleaney (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have expanded this article with independent sources which I believe further prove notability. Bleaney (talk) 11:15, 23 January 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) 00:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Cordeiro[edit]

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

This article was created by User:Nhl4hamilton, who has many worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia (and indirectly to Commons, to which many of his photos have been transferred). However, this article is self-promotional, as the user is the subject of the article (see, for example, the author noted for CentreMallHamiltonCanada.JPG at Commons; there are numerous such examples). The references seem quite weak for a biographical article, and the article appears to fail WP:BIO. Mind matrix 21:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time we delete all autobiographies immediately. We need to stop this abuse of process and policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mario Jump 83! 09:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to his personal talk page, not notable for the mainspace in wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think most of the content would fail WP:UPNOT. Mind matrix 17:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is quite heavily advertorialized, claims nothing about his career that would make him "inherently" notable in the absence of a properly demonstrated WP:GNG pass, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (e.g. the self-published EPKs of his own films) that aren't support for notability. If somebody could write it neutrally and reference it properly, things would be different — but neutral and properly referenced, this isn't. Bearcat (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and it's with a heavy heart because I'm not sure that would be my verdict if I could read the Kazakh-language links. But they would have to be at least marginally more substantive than their English-language counterparts. The self-creation is what tips it over the edge for me, unfortunately. Close call though. Abeg92contribs 00:06, 25 January 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. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer Höss[edit]

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

According Wikipedia:Notability (people) beeing grandson of a relevant person in history does not generate relevance to the person himself, in my opinion. Author of only one book is also not enough.Stephan Tournay (talk) 09:12, 7 January 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 January 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a low level criminal as this person is is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as he was a featured in Hitler's Children, wrote a book, and there are dozens of articles about him, not his grandfather. His activism for anti-fascism is notable and he clearly qualifies for an article. (withdrawing my vote upon further consideration. I may agree with JohnpackLambert) --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:21, 17 January 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. Bearcat preempts the NPOL/POLOUTCOMES arguments made by later keep voters; they did not provide substantial backing for their claims that San Diego is at the level of other NPOL example cities. On that basis, and the lack of GNG-meeting sources in general, I find their arguments less persuasive, and find a consensus to delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Elo-Rivera[edit]

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

BLP about a member of the San Diego City Council. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete city council members are rarely notable for such. The sourcing does not suggest that Elo-Rivera is one of the extremely rare exceptions to this general guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in a BEFORE search indicates this subject passes Wikipedia's notability guideline (WP:N) to have a BLP included. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In principle, San Diego is a large and important enough city that some of its city councillors could potentially qualify for articles if they could be substanced and sourced as having significantly nationalized prominence — but it isn't in the narrow range of global cities where just existing as a city councillor is automatically enough in and of itself, and the sourcing and substance here aren't where they would need to be. The notability test for city councillors is not just the ability to source a bit of information about his educational and career background and then technically verify his election to the city council — it requires the ability to write and source genuinely substantive content about his work on the city council, such as specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's lacking here. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NPOL as a member of the city council of a regionally and nationally significant city. KidAd talk 00:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NPOL says “ City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London.” I don’t think San Diego is in that category. Mccapra (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, “ City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London.” The second largest city on the west coast of the United States is internationally famous. Kire1975 (talk)

NPOL #2 hinges specifically on whether or not the city is classified as a global city by one or more of the organizations listed in that article as eligible to confer that designation, not just on throwing around assertions of fame like nerf balls. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bearcat. What is NPOL #2 and where does it say all that?? Kire1975 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The remaining question is "is San Diego an internationally famous metropolitan area, like Toronto, etc?" That's certainly a judgement call. If so, NPOL is met. If not, available sources don't appear to meet GNG, NPOL, or other notability criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Elo-Rivera has become the President of the City Council of San Diego, as had the previous City Council President Jennifer Campbell. IvanjelikalAnCom (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my previous comment: I do believe that the original deletion of this page was more valid back in 2021. However, given his elevated position as president of the city council in 2022, this page should be kept. IvanjelikalAnCom (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

State Route 40 (New South Wales)[edit]

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

When I initially created this article, it was somewhat notable to me, but mainly it fascinated me when NSW had the shields, why there were two State Route 40's. I later did some research to conclude it's a split route. Later, when I read WP:N, I realised that the article is already covered by other articles and it's own article isn't necessary. Furthermore, it only really fascinated me and Wikipedia isn't my personal encyclopedia so I would kindly request this to be deleted. AussieCoinCollector (talk) wish the entire world's COVID-19 status was like WA, 275+ days of no local cases :) 20:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since you are the only major contributor to this article, you are welcome to request WP:G7 deletion, should you wish Spiderone 22:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that AussieCoinCollector (talk) wish the entire world's COVID-19 status was like WA, 275+ days of no local cases :) 22:57, 17 January 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin of the North[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found two sources that could theoretically be called reviews but they're so short they're more like a listing of what's on TV than actual reviews. Admittedly I added them mostly because they were so scathing they were kind of funny. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough citations to pass WP:GNG Donaldd23 (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to ReaderofthePack's reception section. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:30, 20 January 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Camouflage (2001 film)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wasn't able to find any sources about the movie... Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 18:26, 20 January 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 20:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Markenson[edit]

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

Uncited since at least 2008, a speedy deletion tag was removed because the article survived deletion in 2005. I could find no reliable secondary sources to justify the article's existence. User:Namiba 20:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 20:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 20:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 20:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I googled his name and couldn't find much beyond mere mentions and wiki websites. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 21:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing close to this is at all reliable. We need sources, not just bald assertions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 19 January 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 Eastern Province representative cricketers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Burkett (cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC, or at worst, redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For Christ's sakes, don't go on a witch hunt now against cricket articles. This person meets WP:NCRIC, keep him. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:N guidelines. Notability is the measuring stick by which every article is tested no matter the subject or content. Every SNG that presumes notability based on criteria may do so but if articles are brought before AfD then we are instructed to base decisions on this and this alone. The subject fails this guideline and therefore the presumed notability is rebutted as per WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that WP:CRIC which is where WP:NCRIC states it draws its information from states that notability is "presumed". That does not mean it should be kept. Consensus, based on guidelines, from this AfD will decide that in this case. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. Nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability, but fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases and routine/trivial coverage (squads, match reports, etc.). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting the GNG. That needs to be the minimum standard we hold all articles to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- doesn't meet the WP:GNG. A rebuttable presumption of notability isn't an exemption from sourcing requirements, no matter what some would have us believe. Reyk _YO! 16:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, can be recreated as stand-alone article once sources are actually found. Fram (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect or Delete Other than stats that say he played 4 Eastern province games nothing else on the net, including Wisden. Either merge and redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers or delete. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:06, 21 January 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 Tally Solutions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TallyPrime[edit]

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links predominantly to press releases which we don’t consider reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, TallyPrime is a product (business management software) by a company called Tally Solutions. Please don't confuse things. Vexations (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations, an error on my part I apologize. Thanks for pointing that out, it however doesn’t invalidate my argument. Best, Celestina007 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, if you think the company is not notable, you could perhaps include Tally Solutions in this nomination per WP:MULTIAFD. Vexations (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It still doesn't change the fact that the subject article does not provide anything remotely close to significant coverage in independent and reliable sources which is the standard by which every SNG and the GNG requires editors to adhere when creating articles. Fails WP:N so therefore should not be included. This was my conclusion after conducting a WP:BEFORE as required. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Tally Solutions, the creator of the software, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I found a few more notable references from a non primary sources. Seems to pass WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsyousuf (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Itsyousuf, You added three sources: [12] is a press release, [13] is an interview with Tejas Goenka, the managing director of Tally Solutions and [14] is another press release. NONE of these are non-primary. Please see WP:PRIMARY. I am reluctant to support the deletion of an article about a very widely used application, but I have no qualms about deleting unambiguous promotion. Either we get some better sources, or this article ought to be deleted. Delete, for now. Vexations (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Cunard, Redirect or Merge to software creator. Does not seem notable on its own, but would be a useful redirect and maybe could have a sentence or two in parent article. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issues are addressed to the extent Celestina007 can you verify and remove or change the template to Template:Refimprove
Keep As per Tertiary source TallyPrime is the latest product from the house of Tally Solutions, which replaces its previous flagship product Tally.ERP 9. ET Now in a special segment “Leaders of Tomorrow” where Tejas Goenka, MD at Tally Solutions talks in detail about TallyPrime - https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/et-now/shows/leaders-of-tomorrow-season-9-gautam-singhania-tejas-goenka/86459 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramit Pratim Ghosh (talk • contribs) 16:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC) sock vote Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly believe the TallyPrime Wiki page should not be deleted. [WP:SECONDARY] [15] sock vote Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is a an article from secondary source which affirm the notability of TallyPrime per Secondary source: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/tally-launches-tally-prime-to-help-small-businesses-innovate-faster-6072481.html sock vote Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t really seem like enough if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tally Solutions, not a single reference in this article meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. All are press releases, interviews, quotations, promotional, etc. Seriously, its business software that was launched less than 3 months ago, Wikipedia isn't a promo website. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tally Solutions - notability not established for stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 16:36, 27 January 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 20:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinchas Winston[edit]

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

Fringe author (as is particularly obvious from an older version) of self-published, unreviewed books. No evidence of passing WP:AUTHOR or any other applicable notability guideline. I would have gone the PROD route, but one was added and removed over a decade ago, making the page technically ineligible (not that it's been improved in the interval). XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per my concerns previously addressed on its talk page, I don't see independent reviews of his books and for various I can't even find items corresponding to the ISBN. This indicates failure to meet WP:BLPN. I found this more mainstream source: https://atlantajewishtimes.timesofisrael.com/rabbi-winston-shares-message-of-redemption/ but yes, that's what apocalyptic preachers do. For the original state of the article I would more say it was a religious sermon than only fringe (yet obviously not acceptable as-is in an encyclopedia article). —Paleo Neonate – 20:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lack of independent reviews seems to suggest Winston is not a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 19 January 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 Sentry (Robert Reynolds). Daniel (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentry (comics)[edit]

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

Unnecessary extended disambiguation page. Sentry links to the three articles and one character list section. This is otherwise a pointless duplication of plot information and the inclusion of one other trivial character. TTN (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. This is actually a good use as a set index and is not a disambiguation page. Plus, some of the other characters named Sentry don't have their own pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sentry (Robert Reynolds) as an ATD. The other characters should be redirected to the character lists (but what is the scope of this AFD? I am confused). Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect due to a lack of independent coverage to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Not opposed to deleting it outright. Would also accept someone re-creating this as a disambiguation page. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does need to be trimmed from its current form, but AfD is not cleanup. The fact that there are indeed multiple referents seems to suggest disambiguation is necessary (even if this level of coverage is not). Ford MF (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proper disambiguation already exists at Sentry#Comics. Unless notability for the role separate from the character exists, there is no justification for this page. The lead even says they're "unrelated," so I assume there's no overarching connection either. TTN (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a comment to clarify that there is a difference between a WP:SETINDEX and a disambiguation page. A set index article (SIA) provides information along with navigation per WP:SETNOTDAB, but it still needs to justify its existence. This looks to me like way too much information being conveyed, though... -2pou (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sentry (Robert Reynolds), as that seems to be the most prevalent use of the term. There is already a dab, so that wouldn't be an option, although we could redirect to the dab. Clearly not enough real-world notability to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sentry (Robert Reynolds) - as he is, by far, the most well known comic character using the name, and is the most likely version someone would be searching for. The other characters with similar names that are potentially notable are already on the main disambiguation page for Sentry#Comics. As mentioned, the characters are completely unrelated to one another, so there is no real reason for them to be covered together, and also covered in their own articles. Redirecting will also preserve the history, in case there is any information people feel needs to be transferred over to the individual character articles. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Convert into regular disambig with entries pointing to Sentry (Kree), Sentry (Curtis Elkins), Sentry (Robert Reynolds), List of Marvel Comics characters: E#Earth Sentry and List of Marvel Comics characters: W#Stewart Ward . PS. I see this is de facto done at Sentry#Comics. I am also fine with redirecting to S(RR) if the consensus is he is the most famous comic character named in such a way. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 20:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sentry (Robert Reynolds) per those above, with an appropriate hatnote. BD2412 T 03:34, 18 January 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. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Tschugguel[edit]

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

The long name is wrong. In 1918 nobility and all related titles were banned in Austria. This person is also unknown and not relevant. There are no mentions in mainstream sources. Only a few minor radical catholic publications wrote about him, because he stole pagan statues, but this does not make him relevant. I guess Tschugguel wrote this article himself. A lot of useless information. He had Covid, so what? Oh and he "worked" for a tiny, now defunct party (what did he do?) that never achieved anything and that most Austrians never heard anything about. Oh,and he founded an "Institute" that has zero hits on Google, besides a Instagram page with 178 followers and a defunct ("Maintenance") homepage. This is just advertising. BarKochba555 (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — BarKochba555 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep subject is notable, as established by sources cited in the article. The New York Times and Vanity Fair, as well as Crux, National Catholic Reporter, National Catholic Register, and Catholic Herald, are just a few examples of credible media outlets used as sources for the article. As for the "long name", the lede already contains a note in the first sentence regarding the name and the use of an extinct/defunct title, which is not allowed in Austria. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is misleading. His real name can only be "Alexander Tschugguel", everything else is verboten by the law. Why should fantasy names and titles be in the first line of the article? --BarKochba555 (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a discussion for the article's talk page, not a deletion nomination, which I mentioned on your talk page prior to this nomination. Not to mention it is covered by the note provided in the lede. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is established. As an aside, the nom appears more like a personal vendetta and not a policy-based argument. Elizium23 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 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 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly meets WP:GNG. If there is an issue with the name that is something to be worked out the discussion on the talk page - not through deletion. MarnetteD|Talk 20:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. What??? the nominator you are WP:IDONTLIKE ??? VocalIndia (talk) 19:42, 18 January 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. Daniel (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guyana Airline Pilots Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. I added the current weak sources, and they amount to a name-drop, and 2 editorials about pilots, nothing about group itself. A search on Gbooks yielded a listing in a few directories, but nothing else. My gut tells me this is more of an informal social alliance than proper trader organization, and is already aligned with efforts of other more visible orgs, like Aircraft Owners’ Association of Guyana, which has a bigger internet presence. I was actually surprised that absolutely nothing came up about this trade union: I'd love to fix it up if the sources were out there, but it just isn't notable as is. Estheim (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:48, 17 January 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. A discussion about merging can happen at another AfD Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Texas Multi-Use Facility[edit]

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

Found this one in CAT:NN cleanup of geographical places. It's a private prison, so the relevant SNG would be WP:NORG. Most of the coverage of it is either very shallow (ei prison databases) or is government reports published by the Texas state agencies that help oversee the prison. I don't think this meets NORG or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A prison with 2,200 inmates. Clearly notable, plenty of sources here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalis196 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ [Changed per discussion below] Redirect to List of Texas state prisons- the place exists, but there's no evidence of notability. Sources I looked at, including those offered by Vitalis196, are merely listings or incidental mentions, so fails WP:GROUP and WP:GNG for not having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It's worth repeating: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." SilkTork (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's listed in a couple of Prison directories [1][2], and also a fair amount of media coverage [3][4][5] [6]. Much of the coverage is local but that does not mean that it isn't significant or reliable. Added to which it's a large prison home to 2,200 people. I'm pretty convinced that it's notable. Vitalis196 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to confuse existence with notability, especially when something is mentioned in several places. We have essays on this, such as WP:ENN and WP:EXIST which seek to explain the difference between existence and notability. Sometimes it's not easy to make a judgement on what is notable, which is why we have this discussion board. However, our inclusion criteria requires that a subject is not merely listed or mentioned, but that at least one person (preferably more) has written directly about the subject in reasonable depth in a reliable source in a manner to indicate they have selected that subject because it seemed interesting or notable rather than commonplace or Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. We don't set out to list everything that exists or is mentioned, just those things that are regarded by reliable sources as notable. If you can find at least one source which talks directly about the prison (not about Covid-19 in prisons, nor about students visiting prisons, but a source where the prison itself is the main topic) that would help establish notability. I did a search myself using the "find sources" links above and found only passing mentions in newspapers, such as yourself, nothing substantial and nothing in books. SilkTork (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The presumption is that major government and analogous facilities are significant, even if they keep a low profile. "Substantial" is one of those key words at WP discussions which can mean whatever we want it to mean at the time--the operational meaning is "sufficient to pass afd". In practice, the degree of depth necessary for that depends to a considerable extent on whether or not we want an article, though we pretend in the written guidelines it's the other way around. Considering what tends to be available for this sort of subject, it's sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are arguing for, DGG, is a listing or mention, which we have at List of Texas state prisons. Your argument is that prisons (even non-government ones) are important enough for us to list them, as in a gazetteer, and I agree with you, and will shift my !vote to redirect to List of Texas state prisons. However, while I agree we should list all prisons, I can't agree that Wikipedia users/editors should be the ones to decide if a particular prison is notable enough for a stand alone encyclopedia article; for that we use WP:GNG which does require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If anyone feels that more information can be provided about East Texas Multi-Use Facility in the manner of a gazetteer (date of opening, number of prisoners, etc), then that is best done by building on the existing gazetteer of Texas state prisons rather than creating multiple stub articles. I am, as I say above, still open to shifting my !vote if someone comes up with an independent source where the prison is the main topic. SilkTork (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SilkTork: -- wait, a 3rd party source has to treat the subject as the main topic of its coverage? Please say more about that. --Lockley (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes. If someone finds an independent source where the prison is the main topic I will certainly consider changing my !vote. An article doesn't always need to be the main topic, it can be sufficient that a source addresses the topic directly and in detail; however, that a source, or even several, has the subject as a main topic doesn't always in itself confirm notability, as per WP:EVENT, where a subject may receive main page coverage in several newspapers, but only for a day, and WP:BOOKCRIT, where a press release or review is reprinted in several magazines and newspapers. It depends on circumstances, so I cannot guarantee that I will change my !vote, but I will certainly look into it. SilkTork (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the sources I linked to? At least one of the sources *did* treat the prison and its program as the main topic. It certainly addressed it in detail anyway... Vitalis196 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge: I agree the article does not have SIGCOV from IS RS for a stand alone article. I agree institutions such as prisons are usually notable even lacking SIGCOV required by other subjects covered by ORGCRIT and NBUILD. Since the article is only a substub, it can easily be redirected/merged to List of Texas state prisons without any loss. // Timothy :: t | c | a 13:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the original author. In 2016 I looked at scores of state prison articles for all 50 states. A population of 2200 is big for a prison, even in Texas. Official state sources on prisons tend to be skimpy, confusing, inaccurate, and especially subject to link rot. MTC's descriptions of their own properties are not much better -- for instance, Texas and MTC call this facility by two separate names, "East Texas Multi-Use Facility" and "East Texas Treatment (XQ)". See the above comment by Vitalis196 finding at least 4 addl sources under that second name. That's news to me, and kind of important in this particular discussion. This prison is certainly verifiable. I believe it's notable. --Lockley (talk) 23:52, 19 January 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. Daniel (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ramz Corporation[edit]

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

Stock trading company that doesn't meet WP:NCORP- coverage is a mix of WP:PASSING mentions and WP:ROUTINE events for this type of company. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:56, 17 January 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 20:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just My Type (film)[edit]

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

Non notable Hallmark film. Nothing found to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates that this is a notable film. Not every made-for-TV film is notable, which seems to be the measure of notability we would need to grant this one notability. It appears we have been far too willing to allow articles to pop up on films without considering if they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:22, 20 January 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 20:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Tokich[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG; best source I could find was this brief article in The Advertiser. I also found this most trivial of mentions and confirmation that her career was very brief; she does not appear to have an ongoing football career. Spiderone 18:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 19 January 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 to delete or to merge. Daniel (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popzilla[edit]

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

Short-lived show that got no publicity whatsoever. Only source is a press release. Extensive searching found only a couple of PR bits when the show was launched, an interview, and user-submitted content like IMDb and TV.com. Seems to have been too short-lived and unnoticed to get any attention.

Per WP:NTV: "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone...a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 06:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep per "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market." WP:TVSHOW - Kolma8 (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolma8: I love how you blatantly ignored the passage from the same freaking policy that I just quoted. There are zero sources out there on this show, meaning it was "cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The show had 11 or 12 episodes ran for about a month, had a nomination on 37th Annie Awards, had a few mentioning: [16], [17], The Hollywood Reporter, Volumes 408-409, an entry in 'The Year in Television, 2009: A Catalog of New and Continuing Series', even FoxNews had an article [18], there is a review [19], Variety had an article about Popzilla (yet I can't find it now). So here ya go Kolma8 (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston.com and Fox News sources are just interviews, and the Popdust link is just a listicle in the context of MTV shows. I have found no proof of the Annie Awards nomination. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Annies: [20], also 37th Annie Awards article. Popzilla was surely trash, but made some ripples. IMO. Thanks Kolma8 (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by MTV#Animated Yet another MTV failure that was in and out of the world in four weeks which has all the appeal of a GoAnimate grounded video made by an eleven year-old (here's a bit from YouTube that proves my comparison). There's no point to keep this here; TVSHOW encourages keeps for most television shows, but if the series was on a cable network and barely got public notice, a List of link is the best result. Nate • (chatter) 00:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by MTV#Animated I'd second that redirect to the list of programs broadcast by MTV. Pahiy (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't know this show, but I think it should at least have a page. I think Kolma8 has a valid point on this topic. I see what Mrschimpf and Pahiy are saying, but have to respectfully disagree with them.Historyday01 (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Common Sense Media, Animation Magazine, Star-Phoenix, The Bangor Daily News, and Nanaimo Daily News. SL93 (talk) 11:28, 18 January 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 List of Asia Cup cricket records. Daniel (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asia Cup Twenty20 International cricket records[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST, delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Statistics for just one t20 tournament are too much. Störm (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there is anything notable it should be summarised on the relevant page(s). Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Asia Cup cricket records. No need for separate articles. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Asia Cup cricket records. Tessaracter (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of gaining some input on whether to delete or merge-- since nobody has suggested keeping would be appropriate, 'no consensus' would be a poor outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Asia Cup cricket records - I can't see any reason for the separate article; merge as per WP:ATD Spiderone 17:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Asia Cup cricket records per prior. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 22:54, 20 January 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. All the delete !votes are misapplying WP:BIORELATED, which says "Being related to a notable person in itself [emphasis original] confers no degree of notability upon that person". BIORELATED does not require that relatives of notable people be independently notable in respect to that notable relative. Meeting notability guidelines through reliable coverage, even if only in the context of being related to someone famous is enough to avoid deletion. The delete !votes do not address the sources at all, and their issue seems to be with BIORELATED itself. Furthermore, merging the content, some of which is unique to this article such as her portrayal in media, would be unwieldy in the Marilyn Monroe article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Pearl Baker[edit]

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

Gladys Pearl Baker was Marilyn Monroe's mother, but not notable on her own. Most of the important details about her are already contained in Monroe's article. There is therefore no need for this article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – as per my comments on Baker Miracle's AfD here. Pearl Baker is in the same category as far as I'm concerned. A quick Google brings up a huge amount of interest in her. Not Marilyn, but her. Dutch Wiki has an even more extensive article on this person. As a media curiosity whose life was flung in the spotlight and books/articles focussed on her life, a nomination to delete based on the fact that she was a relative of somebody who was more known doesn't carry itself as a strong argument in my opinion. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: apologies, I was not aware that there had recently been a discussion on possibly deleting this article, my bad! The thing is, these types of articles tend to attract really, really shoddy writing and sourcing, as well as the type of celeb mythology that has little basis on truth (with just a quick read, I can already spot several sentences I know to be plain wrong). But perhaps in this case it's best to focus on improving the sourcing and delete the really dodgy claims rather than the entire article.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Comment - The assertion that "a nomination to delete based on the fact that she was a relative of somebody who was more known doesn't carry itself as a strong argument in my opinion". My biggest issue with that statement is that Gladys Pearl Baker literally has no other claim to notability other than being the mother of Marilyn Monroe. Yes, some notable people have notable parents. Some notable people have parents that become notable after their children have become notable for something other than being their parents. But the claim to notability for a Wiki entry shouldn't be merely for being the parent of someone notable. You mentioned Jackie Stallone elsewhere. While Jackie Stallone may have initially became notable for being the mother of Sylvester Stallone, she became notable in her own right for other endeavors. Gladys Pearl Baker has only ever been notable for being Marilyn Monroe's mother. The opening paragraph first lists her as a film editor. She wasn't a notable film editor. ExRat (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I do not believe being the parent, aunt, or uncle of someone who one day became a cultural icon is notability itself on Wikipedia, as the website has policy regarding the concept of inherited notability. In that case, Ludwig van Beethoven’s, Jimi Hendrix’s, Madonna’s, Cher’s, Elvis Presley’s and even Drake’s parents articles are noticeably missing. I’m staunchly against it because it sets a bad precedence (if anyone has come across discussions of Jim and Mary McCartney you’ve seen what I’m talking about). Simply put, unless the relative has had significant coverage for reasons outside of just being related to a famous person, there is no need for it. As we can see, Mrs. Baker was not a notable film editor. Trillfendi (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per Trillfendi's above comment. Notability is not inherited. The sole claim to notability of the subject of the article is being the mother of a notable person. ExRat (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BIORELATED, "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability" - does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC - Epinoia (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BIORELATED doesn't exclude notability in cases where GNG is already abundantly met. It simply says there's no presumption of notability merely because of a family connection. Here we have a significant amount of RS directly detailing the subject already anchoring this page. GNG is met. IMHO the incomplete history of Marilyn's heritage makes her mother's story an essential pagespace for future development. Marilyn Monroe is a featured article, so the level of family detail in this article is unlikely be accepted for merge there if that's the outcome here. On the other hand, other similar new material is also likely to need a home, and this extant article, already well-anchored with citation from RS, will be improved by serving as a welcome subpage for such "early life" material. Subject has been portrayed in media by such actresses as Phyllis Coates, Betty Lou Holland, Sheree North, and Susan Sarandon. Bernadette Peters as "Gladys" sang solos on a Broadway stage. This isn't close. BusterD (talk) 19:26, 27 January 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 21:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplicity (psychology)[edit]

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

Looking through the content I think it's worth beginning the AfD process. Looking back through the various versions of the article, the concept that the article refers to has changed multiple times, it's unclear whether Multiplicity refers to the use of multiple personality styles, Dissociative identity disorder, Dissociative identity disorder as experienced by some individuals, or somewhat irrelevant original research on how Plato and Shakespeare vaguely touched upon the issue. . All of these subjects are better covered by other articles. The most recent incarnation of the article is already covered at Dissociative Identity Disorder#Rights movement. Vitalis196 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Between the sources mentioned in the latest afd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Multiplicity_(psychology), on the talkpages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multiplicity_(psychology)#Parking_some_potential_sources, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multiplicity_(psychology)#Topic and the latest revision before the clean up in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiplicity_(psychology)&oldid=996407983 as a distinct topic for concept of general multiplicity it at least in my eyes meets notability guidelines and is thus suitable as a topic with at least https://aeon.co/ideas/what-we-can-learn-about-respect-and-identity-from-plurals, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vdxgw9/when-multiple-personalities-are-not-a-disorder-400 being full articles on the topic some of the other sources having significant mentions plus there being several books written on this. There is also a lot of referenced research articles on the concept as well. Though there is certainly discussion to be had for which of the sources to use and rewriting the article to use sourced material. But it doesn't make it not a notable subject. How much it intersects with DID is in itself a topic of discussion in regards to multiplicity and should probably be included in some way but multiplicity and DID are talked about as distinct concepts here(with multiplicity being a common symptom of DID) not as a rights movement for DID specifically. Seteleechete (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from. The version you cite from before the cleanup includes an entire unsourced section about how some multiples perceive the experiences. Many of the key claims made and the terminology used originate from this single shared understanding of how people who identify as Plurals or multiples see themselves. While you're correct to point out that some of this content can be sourced, this understanding of what multiplicity/plurality is and how it's experienced is not a universal or widely held understanding of what the Psychological concept of multiplicity is. It's very specific to a single and primarily online community of people who exhibit these symptoms.

This leads on to what I see as the main problem with the article. From it's conception and the previous articles for deletion process, there has never been a clear understanding of exactly what this article is about. There's a particular confusion between multiplicity in the sense that an individual may use multiple personality styles, or show different sides of themselves to different people or in different circumstances (as written about for example by Rita Carter), and the use of multiplicity to refer to a symptom of Dissociative identity disorder. Then beyond this there's a reference to this particular subculture (for want of a better word) of people experience these symptoms of DID.

If the article has a future, there needs to be a clear decision on how these different topics are delineated within it, and all of the aspects need to be verifiably sourced and placed within context. --Vitalis196 (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the first place I don't think there is a strong need for us to delianate what exactly multiplicity is supposed to specifically represent if there are multiple ways to represent the psychological concept of multiplicity. Trying to decide on it ourselves would be too much original research anyway. We can just add any position and view on what it can represent or how it can be viewed as long as it can be sufficiently sourced(be it relations to DID or about the online community which uses the concept). I think this is a much better way of doing things than trying to limit it to some specific idea/subpart of the concept multiplicity. Just represent the various positions/ideas of various sources on the subject rather than decide ourselves what it's supposed to refer to.

Granted the Rita idea and the plurality idea of multiplicity might still be too far apart for a single article in that regard but it's not uncommon to view plurality as distinct parts of the self in some circles even as others see it as distinct identities/people.(the confusion in this regard matches the general disparate state about the concept in general). Either way I don't think these concepts are so far apart that they need to be split up beyond maybe being within seperate sections/paragraphs/sentences in the same article(or just making sure context is clear). Though if there has to be a choice I for sure think the plurality line is more appropriate in general (there is no real conflict as I can see relating it to what it means within DID anyway, though the main focus should probably still be outside DID since that got it's own article anyway) Seteleechete (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree entirely that the more tenuous definitions of multiplicity which are analogous to Dissociative identity disorder might be better covered within that article - which is one of the reasons I nominated the article for deletion.

I don't quite understand your reasoning when you make the case that the DID related content is better covered elsewhere, but content referring to a specific plurality community (which arguably is how some individuals experience DID) should be prioritised over Carter and Jung's use of the term. Of the two/three? concepts shoehorned into this article, the Carter/Jungian concept of Multiplicity is probably the most notable.

The AFD discussion in 2012 outlined rather clearly that this article ought not to be about a community or otherwise a particular shared narrative of how some people experience DID or plurality. --Vitalis196 (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the article and sources I have to use as it currently stands is however mostly about the plurality part of multiplicity(before the clean up, and I will admit that it needed more sourcing than it had) and there are at this sufficient sources to cover that topic and multiplicity(psychology) is still an appropriate title for it. Though I don't necessarily oppose a rename(if it is really necessary).

We could split the article as well though I am unsure exactly how. I don't know how much sourcing there is about the jungian/rita idea since I only really looked for sources on the plurality idea. I note that a good chunk of such material was moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_style at some point. So I propose we move most of the material in that regard there instead in such a case. Some parts of such works could also still be appropriate to plurality context of multiplicity.

Though I still think it's entirely possible to cover both ideas in a single page just with different paragraphs which could also be an option. Either way, there is sufficient material for an article about the plurality idea of multiplicity so I don't think deletion is appropriate. Also, I don't think it was at all made clear how the article should be rewritten before(hence the current confusion) or that it even needs to be relevant to this discussion anymore. I have updated the article with a paragraph for "personality styles"(taken from an earlier version) and one for plural identities(sourced) which I hope will make it more appropriate. Seteleechete (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the core issues here aren't addressed in the slightest. The article is still playing fast and loose with terminology and it is very difficult to understand what exactly the article is focused on.

While you have restored and found citations for content, it is fundamentally still bad content. The section on Multiplicity as systems of plural identities is a fragment that does not really explain exactly what plurality is and doesn't fit with the rest of the article, and I've just removed it.

Multiplicity =/= Dissociative identity disorder, but since the article keeps drifting back to unencyclopedic content about matters better covered by existing articles on Dissociative identity disorder and related phenomena, or indeed an entirely new article about the plural community if that's warranted, it rather confirms my suspicions that this article doesn't have a defined role. --Vitalis196 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the article is not in a good state, I don't find the delete rationale at all convincing. We have many articles on indubitably notable concepts where we can't give an unambiguous definition because it is a matter of controversy: among the level 2 vital articles, I'd single out life, the arts, and logic as examples. We don't delete articles because they are a bit confused, we delete them because it is easier to start over than to work with what's there (see WP:TNT), which is not the case that is being made here. Can Vitalis196 rework the delete rationale if WP:TNT is what is sought? Otherwise I will !vote keep. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chalst That's a fair point. I don't see the issue as a lack of an unambiguous definition but more of a case where content has been shoehorned in to fit a title. If you look back to the first deletion discussion you'll see that it was essentially rewritten, but even then there was a suggestion that it perhaps ought to have been renamed or developed as a subsection of another article. Unfortunately the way this has been done means that different editors have been working on it with entirely different conceptions of what the article is from others, and the article is (at best) a messy hybrid of several conflated ideas, that likely don't belong in the same article.

As per WP:TNT I think it'd be better to clear it all away and start over. --Vitalis196 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Draftify) - This article could itself be described as a multiplicity... It trys to define the term in a myriad of ways, and I walked away from this article more confused than before reading it. I am fully aware that AfD is not cleanup, however the article seems quite irredeemable in its current state and I am of the view that it should be blown up to allow something functional to hopefully emerge from the rubble. I would not object to Draftification as an alternative to allow the article to be incubated in a more appropriate venue until ready for mainspace. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TNT does nothing in resolving the fundamental issue here(what this article is about) as such it seems like a pointless action to me. In any case, the way I see it you can either split the article or keep both concepts in the same article. I don't see a fundamental problem here since many things have multiple loosely related concepts under the same article, I am also unsure that the concepts are so far apart they need separate articles(could be wrong), particularly in such a contentious subject that by its nature has many different views on what it's supposed to be(with many articles having multiple views on contentious definitions). In either case, I believe there is sufficient notability for the plurality aspects of this article(as such I have restored them) and the title is fitting for them as such at the very least those aspects could be kept rather than having a deletion (and the personality state aspects moved to for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_style in such a case). Seteleechete (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seteleechete I've undone your changes. I removed that content for a reason. As per the previous deletion discussion, this article is not and was never intended to be about how a certain community experience plurality, changing it into that and moving all the other content elsewhere to make way for it isn't the route we ought to go down. Vitalis196 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not convinced by the original delete rationale, that it is not altogether clear what the article means by 'multiplicity', for the reason I gave in my comment from 8th January. Since the topic does appear to be notable and the issues do not seem to rise to the level of WP:TNT, I think the discussion of the way forward for the article is best handled on the article's talk page. I recommend brainstorming ideas for the future of the article (e.g., propose rival definitions, rename to something giving a broader or narrower scope, find possible merge targets) and perhaps hold an RfC if the discussion gets stuck again. I don't get the impression that much effort has been put into finding radical changes other than deletion, which normally should be preferred. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not quite at the TNT level, and one can reasonably understand what the article is about. The topic is notable, although, of course, further improvements to the article are needed. Nsk92 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 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. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Intelligence Professionals[edit]

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

not seeing NORG met here; coverage includes paragraph here and there, and some press releases and passing mentions. Not to be confused with people who are, in fact, Naval Intelligence Professionals. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:02, 17 January 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. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Brussels National Institute of Criminology fire[edit]

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

Apparent failure of WP:EVENT (particularly WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE) and WP:NCRIME. The only real enduring significance is its connection with Salah Abdeslam which could easily be covered by a few lines elsewhere. The attack itself was small-scale and would be better dealt with in an article on the National Institute of Criminology (if one is ever created). —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:14, 17 January 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 the corresponding 'Sport in X' page. Daniel (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania national cricket team[edit]

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

Non-ICC member, hasn't played in any recognised tournaments. The PRODs were contested regarding tournaments like The Baltic Cup or the European Cup (not as major as the name might suggest). None of these tournaments are recognised by the ICC and the teams don't appear to have played for many years. Fails WP:CRIN and WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages related to the above:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that these teams are in any way notable. Nigej (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant Sport in xxx articles seems most helpful here. Just in case a massive uptick in the sport in one of these places takes place. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That would be nice, cricket on the banks of the Neris. I wonder if an all-encompassing Cricket in the Baltic states might work? StickyWicket (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sport in Lithuania and so on for the other two - I agree with Blue Square Thing's reasoning Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I am a big supporter of Associate nation cricket, I think national teams either need to be affiliated with the ICC, or have at least some notable activity and a reasonable level of relevant info. Same for Slovakia and North Macedonia. Regarding the Europe Cup (or similar names), this most likely would in fact be recognised by the ICC as of 2019 onwards (if played as T20 Internationals) as a large number of European nations do have ICC membership and hence T20I status; however, not way back when teams like Lithuania may have been involved. Bs1jac (talk) 23:31, 23 January 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 20:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritmo nuevo y vieja ola[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since December 2013. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable light 1960's comedy, fails WP:NFOE; although directed by prolific filmmaker Enrique Carreras and featuring a famous cast, notability is not inherited.---Darius (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a press release on the movie [21]. Dean Reed appeared in the movie. The movie also mentioned in passing many times in AR news, also in "South American Cinema: Dictionary of Film Makers" by Luis Trelles Plazaola (although I can find a cope to check what is actually said there), there was a mentioning in Diccionario de actores del cine argentino, 1933-1999. I am not sure though if it will pass for GNG. I am willing to take a deep dive on this one. Kolma8 (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We all know that a press release doesn't help establish notability. Having a known actor doesn't do it either as notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED, and the others as you said are "passing mentions", which also don't establish notability. The book is a dictionary of film listings...all passing mentions. So, I wish you luck in finding something that could help his pass the notability guidelines, because I couldn't. Thanks for your efforts. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty scarce information is out there to support even GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few passing mentions is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 19 January 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) 00:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian D. Levine[edit]

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

Local politician in a small community. Had an abortive run for NJ governor, and failed state senate candidacy. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete members of county boards of freeholders, as they are called in New Jersey, are not default notable, and the sourcing is just not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The county level of government is not an instant free pass over WP:NPOL, and the article is not sourced anywhere near well enough to suggest that Levine is a special case of greater notability than the norm for this level of significance. And no, having briefly been an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary for higher office, the rationale that was given by an anonymous IP for undoing the prior redirect to his county, is not a notability booster either: unsuccessful candidates for office are not permanently notable just for having been candidates, and are accepted as notable only if (a) they already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, or (b) their candidacy can somehow be demonstrated and sourced as significantly more special than most other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring impact — but nothing here passes either of those tests. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I (the original creator of the article) have rewritten it to update it, and I think the updates establish notability under the general notability guideline. Levine is a current candidate for governor in the 2021 election. He is in local news all the time. His notability is not canceled by the fact that he has just lost his re-election campaign for Somerset County Commissioner. I think the article also now represents an interesting case study in the complete shift of a government from one party to another in one three-year cycle. Neutron (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a current candidate for governor does absolutely nothing to bolster his notability at all. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se, and that holds regardless of whether the election is in the past or currently under way. Being in his own county's local news also is not in and of itself enough to make him internationally notable, either: every county councillor in every county always gets into their local news, so getting into his own county's local news is not an achievement. At the county council level, the notability bar is not "a handful of local coverage exists" — it "there is a credible reason, such as nationalizing coverage, to treat him as much, much more special than the norm." Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. This bullshit is why I don't write new articles anymore. Neutron (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 05:00, 24 January 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. General consensus that a film institute is a distinct identification, different from a film school. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of film institutes[edit]

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

This has no clear LISTCRIT and doesn't seem to be serving any purpose not met by List of film schools. Paul ❬talk❭ 16:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 16:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 16:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 16:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of film schools since "institutes" and "schools" seem generally interchangeable here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Struck out per Adamant1's comment below. Was not familiar with the distinction. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to be based solely on whether it has "institute" in the name. Our category system has Category:Film organizations as the broadest grouping, with some subcategories by type (film schools, film preservation organizations, etc.), but nothing for "institutes". postdlf (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure which way to go with this at the moment. Except to say that redirecting to list of film schools probably wouldn't work because not all the organizations in the list are schools. For instance, the Australian Film Institute is not a school. Although it does run one, but that's not it's main purpose or the sole thing it does as an organization. So, it would be wrong IMO to have it in a list of film schools. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And resolve the nom's issue somewhere else. NavjotSR (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is only AfD. Wider issue needs to be resolved in appropriate noticeboard. NavjotSR (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that not having a coherent subject is a resolvable issue, or if there is such a noticeboard for that. --Paul ❬talk❭ 18:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid blue linked list, there is a distinction between film schools and film institutes. Any of the institutes that are primarily film schools can be moved to that list, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article meets WP:CLN WP:AOAL for keeping a list // Timothy :: talk 02:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the prior-discussed distinction between film schools and film institutes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:17, 17 January 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) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Stokes twins[edit]

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

BLP/BLP1E issues. Social media stars who are accused of a crime. They seem to have a lot of Tiktok followers, but not enough substantial coverage to write a BLP-compliant article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It looks like all 5 references in the article are in compliance with WP:RS, they are all major news outlets from multiple countries like CNN, Inside Edition, UK news, etc. Google news search of their name also shows more reliable published sources not yet referenced, I think they should be added and the page expanded instead of deleted. It's currently a page without much info. Their notability also seems to be beyond this one event, as there are articles on them for more general interest due to their social media "fame" for example: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-money-stokes-twins-earn-sponsored-posts-tiktok-instagram-2020-2 CosmicNotes (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mostly per CosmicNotes. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/BLP1E. All the sources are just repeating the news story of some nobodies faking a robbery. Would be a "...and finally..." segment on a slow news day. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note the new source I added shows notability outside of this one event. BLP1E only applies "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." The added source shows coverage unrelated to the one event due to their large social media following. They also meet point 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER, due to 28 million followers on TikTok and 800 million likes. If that is not a "large fan base" I don't know what is. CosmicNotes (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we are not a news site. Commission of a minor crime (however unusual and amusing) does not constitute encyclopedic notability for people who were not otherwise notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E - The only substantial coverage on the pair is on the single news event. What little coverage there is in reliable sources outside of coverage of that event is not enough to support a WP:BLP compliant article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial coverage, not notable. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are in compliance with WP:RS, And WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is clearly coverage outside of the one event of them getting arrested, this in Inside Edition and this in Business Insider. As such they clearly pass WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, per "no, WP:BLP1E is not a catchall for everything where one event is bigger than others", per "whether someone is a 'nobody' or not is not determined by whether you've heard of them"... Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:20, 17 January 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 and redirect to Cobra Skulls. Daniel (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draw Muhammad[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. The only independent coverage (or indiciation of notability in general) I can find is this article on punknews.org, which is not nearly enough. Article doesn't have any content that suggests this is a notable recording, either. Lennart97 (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cobra Skulls. Like the nominator, I too found the brief album review at punknews.org but nothing else. With so little to discuss, there is no need for a separate article that does nothing but announce the album's existence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator It just occurred to me that it may be plausible for some readers to use the search term "Draw Muhammad" when looking for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (or simply Draw Mohammed Day). When Googling "Draw Muhammad", all results are related to this event. Maybe a disambiguation page listing both the Cobra Skulls EP and the event would be best. Lennart97 (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Google problem, not a Wikipedia problem. For this particular debate on the album, simply search for <<"Draw Muhammad" + "Cobra Skulls>>. If the album is ultimately found to be non-notable, I see no need for a Disambig page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:47, 17 January 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. Daniel (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

INDEG-ISCTE Executive Education[edit]

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

~~No references, four empty sections, one nonempty section with a few red links, two see alsos, and only one external link(do those last two count?) Mr. Deer (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Checkuser note: I have blocked this nominator as a sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WinnerWolf99. Mz7 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify per nom. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 17 January 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) 16:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kiadtisak Chaodon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; the only coverage of him found in a WP:BEFORE search that was more than a name check was this which is way short of the mark. All other coverage seems to consist of youth match squad listings. Spiderone 12:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 19 January 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) 16:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanathorn Namchan[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL and falls short on WP:GNG from what I can see searching his name in Thai; he appears to have gained some routine coverage which, at best, just consists of announcements of being in the youth academy for Leicester and Leuven. He occasionally gets named alongside other youth players in other routine announcements and match reports too. I could not find anything to suggest that he is still an active player; he was in Leuven's academy in 2019 but can't find anything to suggest any more recent activity so he may well have retired without ever playing a game. Spiderone 12:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could be just a case of WP:TOOSOON, mind, in which case I could live with draftifying, as well. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 19 January 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Children of a Dead Earth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lack of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Current sourcing is unreliable blogs or primary sources. Zero relevant hits in WP:VG/RS's custom searches. MetaCritic has 0 registered critic reviews. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia standards for notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is one review on Pelit and a passing mention on RPS (plus another mention on GamesRadar+, but that appears to be about a novel series rather than the game). However, these do not make for notability. IceWelder [✉] 10:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough RS of a good enough standard. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. benǝʇᴉɯ 18:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass the minimum criteria for WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable video game. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:13, 15 January 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 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An extensive Google search brings up no SIGCOV Or RS . So clearly fails WP:GNG . Kpg jhp jm 12:48, 17 January 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) 16:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 FC Ripensia Timișoara season[edit]

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

There would need to be something ground-breaking for this to justify its own article. Clearly not covered by WP:NSEASONS and fails WP:GNG. If anything notable did happen this season, it can be covered in the main article in one or two sentences (the FC Ripensia Timișoara is not so long that that would be a problem). Essentially, this article is an (incomplete) collection of statistics on a season that does not meet notability guidelines on its own; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See also this, this, this and many others. Spiderone 11:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 20:26, 22 January 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. A discussion to merge can happen after this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Optare Sigma[edit]

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

No significant coverage that enables this to meet GNG. There is a picture of it in 2 books but that’s it. SK2242 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content in to Optare. Agree coverage is next to nothing however I see no reason to outright delete encyclopedic content. –Davey2010^Talk 15:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to it, but the problem with merging here is that the content is unsourced and there’s already a line of coverage on Optare which is sourced. I think redirecting would be best. SK2242 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry should've been clearer - I only felt the lead "(The Optare Sigma is a step-entrance single-deck bus body that was built by Optare between 1994 and 1996 on the Dennis Lance chassis.)" should be merged, Ofcourse that sentence alone is unsourced but would rather save than lose. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a picture of it in 2 books but that’s it. If you are of the illusion that all books are on Google Books, but 99.99% aren't, sigh. Offline sources are available, was able to rustle up a few without much effort. Lilporchy (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You added 3 sources. One is an unreliable enthusiast bus listings page, one does not even mention the Sigma, and it is unknown how much coverage is in the third source to quality as significant coverage. As it stands this still fails GNG. SK2242 (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, that's not it – the nomination is quite mistaken. The subject is covered in detail in the History of Optare, as one would expect. Our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: One source is not enough to meet GNG. Any other sigcov? SK2242 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but five separate publications do. Lilporchy (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Five seperate publications? Where? And when you list them please tell me how much coverage is in them. SK2242 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Five separate publications as listed at Optare Sigma#References namely Commercial Motor, Buses (magazine), Bus & Coach Preservation, book Companion to Road Passenger Transport History and book The History of Optare, all published by reputable publishers. As to what is in them? Information that backs up what is stated in the article. I'm sure they won't come up to the lofty standards you require, but there they are. Lilporchy (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not what I require, but what policy requires. Notability rests on whether at least 3 of those publications having significant in depth non trivial coverage in them. SK2242 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew and Lilporchy. Offline results are always helpful, especially the one mentioned by Andrew. It applies across all bus models, not just the individual ones nominated at AfD where nominators have supposedly tagged them as not notable. Nightfury 10:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced content in to Optare. There is not sourcing to support a stand alone article, but sourced content can be merged into main article, the content will be preserved, the subject will not be fragmented, and the target article will be improved. // Timothy :: t | c | a 11:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I concur this topic doesn't warrant its own article, but it should be preserved on some list of this company's vehicles, or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 22 January 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) 16:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cidade Deportiva de Abegondo[edit]

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

Similar case to Ciudad Deportiva Rafael Gómez; my WP:BEFORE search found nothing more than trivial, routine mentions for this collection of training pitches. The only in-depth coverage is from this blog. Redirect is a possibility but there are three possible targets Deportivo Fabril, Deportivo de La Coruña (women) and Deportivo de La Coruña. This does not look to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone 10:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. IMO it is not the same case, as in the Ciudad Deportiva Rafael Gómez article; firstly - this applies to the training ground of a fairly strong team, which is probably only in the third division for a while, secondly - it is the home stadium for the Primera Division (highest, top tier) side Deportivo de La Coruña Women so it should meet Wikipedia criteria for this reason. 95.160.103.8 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any evidence of extensive coverage to show that this passes WP:GNG? Spiderone 19:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although the decision to remove (or keep the article) will still be arbitrary, due to the lack of detailed guidelines for football stadiums. This stadium; I would like to remind you - the Primera Division women's team, which should give him encyclopedic character; is described in independent sources - including the official Deportivo website [22]. 95.160.103.8 (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are applicable guidelines that we can use to assess the notability of a football stadium (or, in this case, a set of training pitches with one stand at the end); we have WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. In response to the source provided, this does not qualify as an independent source as it is published by Deportivo itself. It is in fact a primary source so does not establish that the training ground is notable. Spiderone 16:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should keep it - thanks to the notability given by the men's notable club (Primera Division top 10 in history) and Primera Division women's club. However, if you decide to delete it - it should be added to the Abegondo article under the "Sport" headline; and create the redirection there. To provide the information where does the team play. 95.160.103.8 (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I understand where you are coming from, it's also important to remember that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I agree that Deportivo is notable but that notability is not inherited by its training pitches. The training pitches would need to have significant coverage itself to warrant documenting separately. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand - in accordance with the standards, I suggest that this article should be deleted, but the content should be moved to the article "Abegondo". In the "sport" subsection, write about the fact that there is a sports center in this city; and make a "Cidade Deportiva de Abegondo" redirect; in this situation I change my opinion for Merge. 95.160.103.8 (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is the make the redirection to that subsection of Abegondo#Cidade_Deportiva_de_Abegondo. 95.160.103.8 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous consensus. Not notable, not worth merging. Giant Snowman 18:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the-mill. Nigej (talk) 20:36, 19 January 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 delete. WP:CSD#A7. Creator blocked for disruptive and promotional editing. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tasrif Khan[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO etc. Can find no notability outside of being a member of the band 'Kureghor' which may or may not be notable. Would redirect to Kureghor if an article existed. This should have stayed in draft space but was moved over by the creator. I then added a BLP PROD which the creator responded to by blanking the page. I then requested speedy deletion at which point the creator restored the original unsourced page. Since we are just going around in circles, I am now taking this to AfD. Almost definitely a vanity article.

[23] - he makes a couple of comments here but the article's main focus is on the band
[24] - trivial mention
[25] - passing mention again
[26] - just a posting of a video
[27] - again, no focus on Tasrif as an individual Spiderone 10:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seem to be lots of sources about the band; perhaps someone will get around to starting an article on them. As far as the subject is concerned, I don't think there is enough signifiant coverage to pass WP:GNG. WP:NMUSICIAN is also not met as an individual. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7. Creator is also being disruptive, continuously moves the page around mainspace and removing AfD templates. Pahunkat (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've actually given up reverting their edits now as they just won't heed any warnings. I would strongly support a block at least until the conclusion of this AfD. Spiderone 12:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. I would also include Tasrif Khan Vau, if it hasn't already been deleted by the time this mess is over. Ifnord (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN . No RS found either . Kpg jhp jm 12:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I cannot find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:32, 17 January 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 programs shown on the ABS-CBN News Channel. Daniel (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Top Story[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NTELEVISION. No sources or external links in article. WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:IS WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. NTELEVISION states subjects such as this may meet WP:N, but should have SIGCOV demonstrating N, which this article does not have. // Timothy :: talk 21:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the problems of group noms, but these are incredibly similar, all are unsourced or just list the show website; so I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Pretty much most of them outside Talkback are generic headline rundown shows; the latter isn't much more notable itself. Nate • (chatter) 23:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all no evidence any of these are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of programs shown on the ABS-CBN News Channel: Not notable enough to have their own article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of programs shown on the ABS-CBN News Channel per reason by Superastig. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I respectfully disagree, as leaving them as redirects will eventually bring them back here with the same questionable issues as they have now. They're just news headline rundowns, and don't need to remain as redirects. Nate • (chatter) 02:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mrschimpf, with all due respect, I honestly see no issues with them if they become redirects. They are mentioned in the target article. Whether they're news rundowns or talk shows, a redirect for them will be a valid WP:ATD no matter what. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply anymore. My redirect stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nom Comment: Delete or redirect, either way they will eventually come back; list items naturally generate nn articles. It's easier/quicker to restore a redirect with reference to this discussion than to go back through AfD, so I have no objection to redirecting. // Timothy :: t | c | a 09:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Not notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Ashley yoursmile! 10:50, 20 January 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. WP:SNOW TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfe Perry[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NBASKETBALL. Only significant acting credit is for The White Shadow. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A short search turned up quite a few articles about him during his college basketball career[28][29][30] Alvaldi (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access those sources. Can you describe them? Are they reliable sources? Do they provide in-depth coverage? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Apples&Manzanas: Full articles are available here: [31][32][33] All three even mention his acting in college.—Bagumba (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Doesn't this article still fail WP:NACTOR and WP:NBASKETBALL though? His acting credits still don't seem that significant to me. IE they seem like a trivial mention. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Apples&Manzanas: A subject can just outright meet WP:GNG (i.e. multiple sources of significant coverage) without meeting a specific notability guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, maybe you're right then. I will change my vote to keep, unless i hear new counterarguments. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added this ref to the article, which is a dedicated article on his early acting career.—Bagumba (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG for both basketball and acting careers.--User:Namiba 12:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with combination of multiple sources of significant coverage on his basketball and acting career, based on sources cited here and others since added to the article.—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Alvaldi's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG Peter303x (talk) 02:04, 20 January 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) 00:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sthree (1970 film)[edit]

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Then more specific:

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.

The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Fails all of the above.

Now let's look at the references: All three references are the database entries.

Kolma8 (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:BEFORE? and a link to the film guideline is sufficient, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist, as the only supporting delete comment is weakly argued, and BEFORE has not been discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the above. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did more WP:BEFORE and there was really nothing that I was able to find about the movie, from no ratings on IMDB to zero coverage in news/books that can pass GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 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 06:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daegu Sindang Elementary School[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GSS ^💬 05:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 05:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 05:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced stub about non-notable school, fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lacking multiple in-depth reliable sources and therefore failing WP:GNG/WP:ORG. Which isn't surprising really. It's pretty hard for an elementary school to be notable. Even one in such a populated place as where this is located. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable elementary school. There's no apparent place to redirect it to, so deletion is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect to Dalseo District - but the latter is still a huge area, so linking to one elementary school within it is probably a bit pointless. Agree the school is not notable. Tacyarg (talk) 01:50, 18 January 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 06:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalam Vidya Niketan[edit]

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

A non-notable educational institution with no significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS ^💬 05:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 05:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 05:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 05:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor now blocked as an UPE Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL RationalPuff (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete: Just another school that exists. Fails WP:NORG, the notability criteria for school. Also, in accordance with the update by Jimfbleak above. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:34, 18 January 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. Not relisting this a third time as I believe it is unlikely to reach any outcome other than NCS. Daniel (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AppFolio[edit]

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

This article could have been nuked by WP:G5, but there were a few clean up edits over time other than those by the multiple paid editors that created and maintained it. The company does not seem to meet notability criteria. There's only a few sources that are company press release copypastes and some coverage by small local outlets in Santa Barbara. MarioGom (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.

Analyst reports

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/APPF/price-target/^{Internet Archive} contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Impact on Share Price	Details
10/26/2020	Keefe, Bruyette & Woods	Initiated Coverage	Market Perform	$150.00	Low	View Rating Details
5/27/2020	William Blair	Downgrade	Outperform ➝ Market Perform		High	View Rating Details
5/4/2020	DA Davidson	Downgrade	Neutral ➝ Underperform	$88.00	High	View Rating Details
7/16/2019	KeyCorp	Initiated Coverage	Sector Weight ➝ Sector Weight	$106.10	Low	View Rating Details
5/6/2019	Morgan Stanley	Boost Price Target	Underweight	$61.00 ➝ $82.00	Low	View Rating Details

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AppFolio to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The analyst reports from Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, William Blair & Company, DA Davidson, KeyCorp, and Morgan Stanley are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations.
Cunard (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another source:
2. O'Keefe, Brian; Rapp, Nicolas (2020-10-29). "Finance has usurped tech among the 100 Fastest-Growing Companies". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  The article notes:
  Founded in 2006, AppFolio is a classic tech-industry success story. The software-as-a-service company started out offering property management products and then moved into legal-practice software. And over the past three years, the Santa Barbara, Calif., company has produced warp-speed growth. Revenue has increased by an average rate of 34%; earnings have rocketed up 161% yearly; and the total return to shareholders has averaged 71%. Those sizzling figures are good enough to place AppFolio at No. 1 on this year’s list of Fortune’s 100 Fastest-Growing Companies.
  One might imagine that a ranking of fast-growing companies would be dominated by AppFolio-type businesses—tech startups made good. ... That includes Netflix (No. 5), which is making its 10th total appearance on the list and appears for the third straight year. ...
Cunard (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The National Post is a reliable source, Newzfolio isn't. Seems more like a business listing than an article establishing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article does not use any sources called "Newzfolio". It does use a Noozhawk source, which has editorial oversight according to https://www.noozhawk.com/meet_the_team.
Per Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability, "Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." The company passes the notability guidelines with the coverage in numerous analyst reports published by Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, William Blair & Company, DA Davidson, KeyCorp, and Morgan Stanley.
Cunard (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:46, 17 January 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. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Khan (author)[edit]

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

Non-notable author. The entire article is on the back of a self-published book. Wholly promotional vanity article. RationalPuff (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough sourcing to show this person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:40, 17 January 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. Obvious consensus that WP:BLP1E applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laila Al Habsi[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E applies. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - What is about her diving in Baikal so notable? Am I missing something? Kolma8 (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Kolma8, don't crop out everywhere if you don't have time to read why it has been nominated for deletion at first. You are not obliged to comment on every deletion discussion. SAMA990 (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first thing is she passes the notability guidelines.

Secondly as indicated by Mccapra if WP:BLP1E applies it says: We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met. Its 3rd point is: if the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

So it does not meet the third point. The event is significant and the event is well documented by all top media outlets of the the Middle East. If it was not that significant, it would not have been covered by top and reliable media outlets. SAMA990 (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dispute that being the first Arab woman to dive in Lake Baikal is substantial, any more than being the first Irish woman to climb Macchu Pichu or the first Filipino woman to swim the English Channel. As to being well-documented, what is well-documented is her claim to be first. There is no reliable independent sourcing of who has ever dived in Lake Baikal, so the claim, though widely repeated in the press, may not be true. So in summary, you can’t base a Wikipedia biography on a single event which is possibly true and not that important anyway. Mccapra (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- First, it is certainly substantial, its not like diving in a swimming pool or a pond. Baikal is the world's oldest and deepest lake and diving in it is certainly notable and top media outlets, like BBC, cover the diving in lake Baikal. Let's have a look at this link.
Second, there is a difference between, an Irish woman climbing Macchu Pichu or the first Filipino woman swimming the English Channel, and an Arab woman diving in the lake Baikal. This is because in Arab women rarely do such activities, dosing such thing is certainly notable that is why top and leading media outlets have covered the story.

Third, if it was not true it wouldn't have been published by media agencies, that too by their correspondent names, if it had been covered by the blogs or non reliable media outlets, we could say it is suspicious. I think Times of Oman, Gulf News, Gulf Times, The Arab American News and other media outlets will not cover just hearsays. These are the reliable and top English newspapers of the whole region.SAMA990 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well if they’re repeating a claim unsupported by evidence, that is the definition of hearsay. Mccapra (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they have posted pictures along with the news and even video of the diving, I don't know what do you mean by unsupported claim. Just have a look at this link. SAMA990 (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable- especially to the Arab community. Baikal is the deepest and oldest lake in the world. Similar wikipedia articles that were deemed notable were Raha_Moharrak & [[34]] I see no reason for this to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanktanya (talk • contribs) — Sanktanya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note to closer: this account has made 1 edit, ever: to this AfD. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Outlets picking up the same tourism story does not amount to sustained coverage. Partaking in a common tourist activity is not noteworthy. I share Mccapra's view that this is analogous to being the first Irish woman to visit Macchu Pichu. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - diving in a lake is not the same as reaching the summit of the tallest mountain in the world. And Mccapra's assessment is spot on, as is Þjarkur. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I am stick to the arguments above. No one is giving counter argument based on facts, figures and Wikipedia guidelines. I think just delete and keep votes wouldn't be counted. SAMA990 (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SUSTAINED is a guideline. (Also note that we can't add bolded votes twice, but you can change the second '''Keep''' to a '''Comment''') – Thjarkur (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bolded part struck for clarity as user has voted three times in this discussion – Thjarkur (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After going through the discussion I came to the conclusion that page passes the guidelines and subject deserves a page on Wikipedia. I have gone through the links, they are from top tier and reliable media houses and covers the subject in detail. Titumamaa (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Consensus has already been reached, the subject totally qualifies for Wikipedia, and if any improvement is needed, it can be done. Based on facts and Wikipedia guidelines, it is unjust to delete this page.SAMA990 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SAMA990 I’ve crossed out your duplicate !vote. You can only cast a vote once. Mccapra (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Any arguments against a merge to Lake Baikal? That's what I'd lean towards right now. ~EdGl talk 23:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
- The argument against a merge would be that the subject plainly isn't notable for anything and having gone scuba diving in a lake (like thousands of other tourists do) is not worthy of a mention. No other scuba diver is mentioned at the Lake Baikal article. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no opposition to a merge instead. Upon further review, although the sources make it "pass" GNG, it is only "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" (emphasis mine), and I believe it fails that presumption due to Mccapra and Thjarkur's arguments -- I need convincing that what she did was noteworthy. I read the sources and they are all fluffy/puffy; none of them explaining the significance or noteworthiness of the accomplishment. ~EdGl talk 01:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per User:EdGl directly above, and the wider consensus above. Absolutely no way for mine that this reaches the notability standard required for a Wikipedia article. Daniel (talk) 11:12, 25 January 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. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gods Unchained[edit]

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

This is a crypto article and such should conform to WP:GS/Crypto. There are not enough mainstream sources - of the 2 references, 1 appears to be a paid PR release. Molochmeditates (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the article is in a pretty poor state right now, there is enough sourcing out there for this to pass GNG. In addition to the VentureBeat source already in the article, I also found coverage in the Australian Financial Review [35] and in MIT Technology Review [36]. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there any more WP:RS's? If not, I'm not sure this passes GNG. HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HocusPocus00:, Yeah, there's also coverage in The Sydney Morning Herald here and Yahoo! Finance here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Finance is actually a republished article from Decrypt.co. Generally the cryptocurrency news sites aren't useful for notability per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#CoinDesk. Coin (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the coverage appears to be entirely the launch PR push, nothing that meets WP:NCORP standards. This is WP:TOOSOON at best - David Gerard (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, that's not true though, the Sydney Morning Herald article was written a year after the game came out, it could have a hardly been part of any launch PR campaign. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I found a few more notable RS's from a quick google search. Seems to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, given WP:NEXIST. Article definitely needs work, but notable sources do exist out there.

Draftify or delete. The sources from the above comment only make for four secondary sources, all of them WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. There is not enough in-depth coverage to keep the article as it currently stands. IceWelder [✉] 09:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t see how you could say that none of the sources are in-depth. That’s obviously not true. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 05:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or delete: It doesn't meet WP:NCORP, lacks significant coverage. The org policy is a lot stricter than the GNG. Someone should move it to a draft. I assume that this game will be notable in the future, but it doesn't meet the requirements for an article at the moment. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To everyone who is talking about WP:NCORP, Gods Unchained isn't a company, it's a video game. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair call, I'm beginning to doubt my delete vote. The venturebeat and engadget sources provide fairly decent coverage. With that said, are those even reliable sources? (EDIT: yes, they are RS according to: WP:RSP.) It's pretty borderline, but perhaps these three sources (1) and (2) and (3) are 'good enough' - the other sources are I guess a bonus. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC) EDIT: Actually, this source (4) is quite good too. I can't read this source due to paywall (5), but if that's a decent source, then I think this comfortably meets the GNG now...especially if NCORP doesnt apply. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reasoning outlined above. I did a strike through my previous vote. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HiddenLemon. Article is in bad shape, but there are enough RSes. ~EdGl talk 23:04, 22 January 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. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhakre[edit]

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

Same problem fails WP:GNG, the single source used here is also considered unreliable for caste articles. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more credible sources are shown to exist. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 24 January 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 USS Lloyd E. Acree. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Edgar Acree[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. One posthumous award of the Navy Cross and a rank of Aviation ordnanceman 3rd Class doesn't make him notable. His role as namesake of the USS Lloyd E. Acree is set out on that page. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Lloyd E. Acree as the ship's namesake; doesn't pass GNG, WP:NPERSON, or SOLDIER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the ship. Not independently notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the ship. Something that should, IMO, be done for many (if not most) of the these articles. Intothat darkness 17:21, 21 January 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) 12:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony OS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject matter of article is an abandoned (last mentioned release over twelve years ago) hobbyist OS with minimal market share (historical or present) or impact, and therefore does not meet general notability guidelines. Foonblace (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With older articles I lean inclusionist, especially when the articles had clear keep outcomes in former AfDds. There was extensive coverage of Symphony OS at the time. Mezzo's design principles (cf. http://web.archive.org/web/20050610031031/http://www.symphonyos.com/uilaws.html by Jason Spisak, 2004) were an influence on other desktops, including KDE. We should probably merge the Mezzo article into this article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I took a look through the last AfD, which was in 2005, and the keep consensus was based on questionable arguments like "it exists so deserves a page". The one source that appears to show any sort of notability is the Linux.com review (the archived version of which can be found here. Aside from Linux.com, there's no reviews or news about Symphony other than changelog notes; the article's subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Significant coverage in third-party sources should be shown, not just alluded to "having existed"...where is the notability coming from? Nowhere that I can find. - Aoidh (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage is insufficient to retain an article. The source cited by Charles Stewart above is not independent, as it's from the OS's own website. Other than that, there's no evidence of the asserted coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 26 January 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) 00:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santoro London[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. As mentioned in the last AFD, the awards are spurious and probably paid for. This article was written almost entirely by SPAs, some of which have already been banned as promo/spam accounts. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article appears to be well sourced. If the award section is sketchy in some way, you could simply remove it entirely and the article could still keep the remaining content. If the awards are not valid you need proof of that. Regards, VERSACESPACE 06:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the valiant refbombing efforts — mostly with sources of the poorest quality, and some cited multiple times to make it look impressive — there's nothing to suggest notability; fails WP:GNG (that one Indy reference notwithstanding) and WP:CORP. How this utterly un-encyclopaedic promo blurb has survived so long, is beyond me. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comes on as a glorified advert and I can only echo the phrase "utterly un-encyclopaedic". RobinCarmody (talk) 19:09, 22 January 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Said Hjiouj El-Sahili[edit]

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

I believe that this article does not meet WP:GNG and I couldn't find any RS on google. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of the sources cited in the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author seems notable. --Gazal world (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly speedy keep per WP:CSK #3 unless someone explains what's wrong with the seemingly independent, in-depth, reliable sources cited in this page and on the Arabic version of the page, and the dozens more that come up in WP:BEFORE. How much more coverage is needed? - Astrophobe (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No explanation from the nominator as to what is wrong with the sources provided. Mccapra (talk) 08:42, 17 January 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 USS Joseph M. Auman (APD-117). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph M. Auman[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. One posthumous award of the Navy Cross and a rank of Private doesn't make him notable. His role as namesake of the USS Joseph M. Auman (APD-117) can be set out on that page Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Joseph M. Auman (APD-117). as the ship's namesake, not passing the various notability guidelines. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with the comment above. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the ship, not independently notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:30, 17 January 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) 00:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ISCAST[edit]

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

Unable to find independent sources. Daask (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.–Cupper52^Discuss! 12:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails WP:GNG it is sourced only to its own website and a search brought up only primary sources, and it is also heavily promotional. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is severely WP:PROMO and the subject does not pass the notability requirements laid out in WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets GNG: source one, source 2, source 3; and also is listed with other notable groups here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow further analysis of the sources provided by Epiphyllumlover.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think there is any dispute as to the existence of this organization, so of course there will be passing mentions on niche websites et al. Not every organisation that exists is notable enough to have an article on wikipedia and I fail to see from the "sources" noted by Epiphyllumlover that notability is established. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 17 January 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 06:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Country Performer and Fan Association[edit]

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

A short lived association with no indication of notability. The award sponsored by this association does not seem to be notable either. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as classic 'Wikipedia detritus'. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything about this entity. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:44, 21 January 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 06:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Pretend Orchestra[edit]

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

Non-notable band. They appeared at a music festival, but that's the only thing I can find about them. Poydoo can talk and edit 01:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 01:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 01:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another non-notable relic article. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Love the name, but I am afraid they are not notable. Another non-notable band article. COI also applies, as this was the only article the creator ever edited. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:17, 23 January 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 NFC Wild Card game (Chicago–New Orleans)[edit]

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

Being broadcast differently doesn't make this game notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this game is not notable in any way, except possibly for being simulcast on Nickelodeon. But information about this simulcast is already included in the NFL on Nickelodeon article, an article on the game itself is not necessary. Frank Anchor^Talk 03:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Games have been notable for their unusual broadcast circumstances before, but this ain't it. O.N.R. ^(talk) 12:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom. Most of the relevant information is on the NFL on Nickelodeon page. This game is not any more notable than any other NFL Wild Card game.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the author of the article, I'd just like to apologize; I wouldn't have even attempted to make this article if I didn't feel it had some sort of significance to it. But since the NFL on Nickelodeon page is still up, that seems suitable enough. Again, so very sorry. If it must be deleted, then please go ahead. Malcolm L. Mitchell (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need for an own article. Kante4 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the NFL on Nickelodeon article. It's a possible search term, and redirects are WP:CHEAP, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very unlikely search term (much more likely a reader would search for the playoffs in general rather than a specific game in the first round). Also a redirect here sets a dangerous precedent to redirect other playoff games using this format if the Nickelodeon game becomes an annual event, not to mention other simulcasts, such as ESPN Megacasts. Frank Anchor^Talk 00:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the author of the article requested the deletion I will vote for delete but otherwise it's only really notable due to the fact that it was broadcasted on a different network compared to usual. HawkAussie (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Game can be covered sufficiently in 2020–21 NFL playoffs. The special broadcast on a children's network can be handled at NFL on Nickelodeon (although even that seems excessive and can generally be covered at National Football League on television). Oppose redirecting, as anyone who might enter that obscure title would probably expect a page on the game, not its broadcast.—Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- See 1939 Waynesburg vs. Fordham football game which is mainly notable not for the game itself but for being the first ever football game broadcast on TV. That article briefly discusses the actual game but mostly discusses the broadcast and lasting impact, because that's what it's notable for. Maybe the best thing is a reverse merge and redirect from there to here, at least until this becomes a regular thing? Smartyllama (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible search term. Right now it's the first and only game to air on Nickelodeon and there is no evidence it will become a regular thing. It's notable for that reason and that reason only, hence redirect to the article where that is covered. If it becomes a regular thing, we can always revisit the redirect if we're concerned about them being created in bulk, though I'd argue the first game to air on Nick would be more individually notable than the others, and that that point might need to be separated out into its own article, with the NFL on Nickelodeon one discussing the broadcasts as a whole. We can discuss it if and when it happens. For now, since the notable aspects of this article and the NFL on Nickelodeon article are essentially the same, a redirect is appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. per Bagumba/Smartyllama. Either option appears fine. Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac (2019 film)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced stub about a non-notable film, fails WP:GNG / WP:NFILM -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks notable to me. Added some references to national and international media. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article meets the WP:NFILM, as it has independent and reliable references, as Hollywood Reporter. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, received full reviews in Lithuanian media. Renata (talk) 18:00, 17 January 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.