Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 19	January 21 >

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. — The Earwig ^talk 00:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Pango[edit]

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

As of the time of nominating this for deletion there are no sources in article but a before search shows they do not satisfy WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references or claims of notability in the article. My search did not find anything to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches find occasional product reviews and listings with other similar providers' products, but I am not seeing the coverage necessary to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 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. — The Earwig ^talk 00:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WebCE[edit]

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up nothing of substance but other than hits in primary sources which isn’t reliable and is not enough to demonstrate notability per WP:ORG. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. All sources are trivial ~RAM (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a company, sourced to routine listings and acquisition notices, insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. There is no article on the IRMI parent company which could serve as a redirect target. Searches do not find the evidence needed to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 18:08, 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 draftify. Mz7 (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Quiet Place (film series)[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion from mainspace (no objection to draftifying) because I find two actual films to be too small of a set for a film series article. Here, we simply have one film and its sequel. It is too early to know if the spinoff will be produced. Furthermore, such articles are simply consolidations of details from individual film articles. With two films, when comparing details, a reader can go from one article to another easily. With three films, a reader can go from an individual film's article to the film series article to readily see how all three films compare. For a similar comparison, per MOS:FILM#Navigation, we don't have director navboxes if there are only two films because there's no need for that bird's-eye view if there is only one other topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for now. Seems like this article has potential if a third film, spin-off, or other media is introduced. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Not ready for prime time. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify content and redirect page to A Quiet Place (film)#Sequel.★Trekker (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good redirect. It just discusses the second film. I don't think there has to be a redirect; it can just be a red link, and any reader who happens to try to search for it can click on either article that shows up in internal results. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The article is not very short, and it contains a lot of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryzhao123 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 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 redirect to List of Big Time Rush episodes#Big Time Beach Party. Mz7 (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Time Beach Party[edit]

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

Non-notable television episode, does not have significant coverage by sources, just passing mentions/listings, per WP:TV/EP BOVINEBOY2008 22:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Big Time Rush episodes as it fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:57, 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 delete. — The Earwig ^talk 00:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temur Chichinadze[edit]

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

I searched but could not find evidence that this rugby player is notable. None of his U20 appearances would give him presumed notability under WP:NRU and my search found nothing more than an empty Ultimate Rugby profile, a passing mention in a match report for an U20 fixture and this. If he were playing in one of the fully professional rugby union leagues, I would expect to see some coverage, the absence of coverage makes me think that he hasn't made that step up yet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:NRU and WP:GNG. No profile on any rugby stats site which suggests he hasn't even played in the Romanian league, let alone a league that passes WP:NRU. U20 appearances aren't enough to pass WP:NRU either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, just seen he is Georgian, he may have played in the top Georgian league but still that is not notable under WP:NRU and not recorded on stats sides. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is extremely short. Figure is not notable.Illuminator123 (talk) 19:26, 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 Rosslare Europort. No prejudice towards rewriting / expanding the article at a later date. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Carr[edit]

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

While mentioned quite a few places, not a single in-depth reference from an independent source as required to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles subject lacks the in-depth coverage needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I was going call for redirect to Rosslare Europort. This article seems to be almost entirely about Rosslare Europort. But I started seeing if the references in Glenn Carr were also in Rosslare Europort. They aren't. So I now call for merge to Rosslare Europort. Geo Swan (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete or merge Glenn Carr became manager of Rosslare Europort in 2018. There were 3 direct sailingsa a week to the EU mainland. Through his efforts, he has now achieved 30 directly weekly sailings on the route. Due to this, Rosslare is now Ireland's most strategic port as it offers routes to the EU as the previous option using the so-called UK landbridge is no longer attractive due to delays and cost. Without Rosslare Europort, Ireland (an island) would be isolated as regards freight. The merit is Carr's. In my opinion, deleting Glenn Carr would be very like deleting Brendan O'Regan's own page and redirecting the reader to Shannon Airport, the Shannon Development Authority, duty'free shpopping, the Northern Ireland Peace process etc. Carr is a similar figure for his partt of Ireland. The new developments in Rosslare due to the port's rebirth are astonishing. A new motorway is being built. All the disused hotels in Rosslare have been bought to become renovated. Rosslare is becoming a major wind energy hub. All of this happens due to one man, who is involved in everything, Glenn Carr. He has been interviewed by The Times (London), France 24, by Reuters, Al Jazeera etc. I have a file of about 60 page cuttings where he is interviewed, inclluding in French etc. I think it would really be a mistake to eleiminate him.MarkHarper1 (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete or merge I have gone to the independent sources. They all contain in-depth references and interviews with the person. The sources are high-quality, and are from a wide range of jurisdictions. Not just Ireland but also UK (Times, Guardian, BBC, Reuters), France etc. A google check on the name shows a lot of foreign-language interviews too. I vote to retain it as it stands as it meets notzbility criteria.Grotius2018 (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it is too drastic to delte or merge. The current importance of the subject is very obvious to readers in UK, Eire and France.HarleyQuinn2020 (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A full profile article and interview has just been dedicated to Glenn Carr by the London newspaper, The Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/glenn-carr-is-making-waves-at-rosslare-europort-pbmzcr0p3 It describes the fact that Carr is General Manager of Freght for the Irish national railways company and is devising the Irish national plan for freight (rail, road and maritime transport). Rosslare Europort, of which he is General Manager, is just a part of his activities. I therefore suggest that this togrther with all the other references show the article's subject has the in-depth coverage needed to pass GNG.MarkHarper1 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have discovered literally hundreds more articles on Carr doing a basic internet search. I will work my way through them and edit the article to link with the new sources. However it will take time as there is a lot of work. Thanks for your patience. I have already addeded a few.MarkHarper1 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked and not one of the sources is a press reòease from Irish Rail or the Port. I am quite amazed that something would think this was a business ploy if they look at the wide range, independence and reliability of the sources. MarkHarper1 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to vote multiple times. I wa trying to add new information.MarkHarper1 (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He appears to be borderline notable. However, I am afraid that this is not written according to our manual of style, but rather more of an essay. Can we userfy or merge this? Bearian (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rosslare Europort where Carr is already mentioned - this article is not a bio as it gives no information on Carr's background or life – the achievements attributed to Carr, such as "Carr has received extensive media attention due to new routes to Dunkirk..." are corporate decisions, not Carr's own – the references are nearly all to media stories about Rosslare Europort, not independent articles on Carr himself - interviews are not independent reliable sources per WP:INTERVIEW - does not meet WP:ANYBIO – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rosslare Europort. per above. The article and the sources say very little about him. Just corporate information. Nigej (talk) 21:41, 31 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. — The Earwig ^talk 00:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criollo (rabbit)[edit]

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

Sources do not provide siginificant coverage of this unrecognized breed to establish notability. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Silver Marten, the names of the references do not match the names of the linked websites, nor do they verify the article. "It was made by scientists in Mexico in 1940." seems inconsistent with [1] Reywas92^Talk 21:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not sure why the American Rabbit Breeders Association and British Rabbit Council linked to their home page. Source 1 tells us that it was made in Mexico and source 6 tells us it was made in 1940. DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked to the home page because that's what you linked to. They don't have a page on the Criollo so I don't know what else it would link to. Source 1 says "This rabbit is common to Mexico and Central America," not that it "was made in Mexico". Can you provide a full quote from the book in source 6? Also, do not add a new section for comments. Reywas92^Talk 22:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book states, "The Criollo rabbit was bred by cattle farmers in the southern region of Mexico in 1940. They successfully created the rabbit when they mixed an American Fuzzy Lop and a Pigmy Rabbit, which was a relativity new breed at the time." That is my quote from the book. DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are mostly minor mentions. My search found only minor references. The breed is not recognized by ARBA "provides unification within its membership that is composed of rabbit and cavy enthusiasts throughout North America and the world." Jeepday (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepday The articles Altex rabbit, Armenian Marder, Bauscat rabbit, Blanc de Popielno, and more are also not recognized by those groups, but are still pages. I think this article helps and adds information for the different breeds. I hope you reconsider. DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to meet notability. Also, the fact that other possibly non-notable breeds have articles is a not reason to keep. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:00, 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. — The Earwig ^talk 00:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Silver Marten[edit]

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

Cite 2 is called "Big Silver Marten Rabbit" but actually links to the homepage https://thebritishrabbitcouncil.org/. Cite 3 is called "The Big Silver Marten" but links to the homepage https://arba.net/, similar for ref 4.

Link 5 is "The history of the Big Silver Marten Rabbit" but the link is "Silver Marten Rabbit" referring to Silver Marten rabbit and makes no mention of the Big variety and does not verify the line it's a cite for. Ref 6 is called "Big Silver Marten Rabbit Breed" but the link "Silver Marten Rabbit" does not have the word "big" at all. The same goes for Ref 8, and none of 6,7,8 verify the line they cite. DestinationFearFan why are none of these actually about the Big Silver Marten? Reywas92^Talk 21:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 21:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those links should have went to the American Breeders Association and British Rabbit Council pages on the Silver Martin Rabbit. I am unsure why it just went to there homepages. Anyway, I have deleted those two sources from the article. DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those links have titles that refer to the Silver Martin breed (not the Big type), but they have some sentences and sections about the Big Silver Martin breed, which is why I included them. DestinationFearFan (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the article it is not a recognized breed. I do not find any significant mentions of it. Jeepday (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepday The articles Altex rabbit, Armenian Marder, Bauscat rabbit, Blanc de Popielno, and more are also not recognized by those groups, but are still pages. I think this article helps and adds information for the different breeds. I hope you reconsider. DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to meet notability guidelines. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:01, 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 redirect to Tiffany Trump#Personal life. Consensus was to delete. But since he's mentioned on Tiffany's Trump's page and the delete !votes do concede that there are reliable secondary sources that cover him in that context, there's no reason why this shouldn't be redirected there per WP:ATD-R. If he becomes more prominent in the future, this could be recreated then. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Boulos[edit]

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

I question the notability of the subject. Particularly appears not to be established in this article.

Yes, he has been involved in business. But so have millions of people. What is the particular notability of his business involvement? What is the particular notability of the companies he heads? Neither of them have articles about them, so their significance needs to be established in this article, if they are indeed all that significant.

Yes he is an heir to a fortune, but not all children of rich people are individually notable. And, his father does not even have an independent article at this moment, only the company has an article. (perhaps his farther should have one, and that is moot to mention, though).

His only other claim to fame is his engagement to Tiffany Trump. Not all presidential in-laws (which he is not even yet, being only engaged to Trump's daughter) warrant articles. There are no articles for instance, about either of the men who have been wed to Luci Baines Johnson. Both Barbara Pierce Bush's and Jenna Bush Hager's husbands lack an article. Only two of Ronald Reagan's many children-in-law have articles. (David Sills has their own article because he was a politician and judge, and Paul Grilley because he was notable in the field of yoga). Etc., etc. SecretName101 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could alternatively be blanked and redirected to either Tiffany Trump or Boulos Enterprises. SecretName101 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the fact though that he shouldn't be compared to other Presidential in-laws he is different and the media has put his name out there more than those other in-laws and therefore has more recognition.

OSUBuckeyeFan (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should he not? And is his name out there more? And how is he mentioned? Is he covered as independently notable, or just as "Tiffany Trump's partner"? I'd never seen him in the news myself, until she announced her engagement. I forgot, or had never heard, that she was no longer with that Ross Mechanic guy. He may be in the news at this immediate moment, but that is only covering the news of his engagement to Tiffany Trump, which again, does not make him independently notable, nor more notable than other children-in-laws of presidents. Heck, Henry Chase Hager and Patrick Nugent held their wedding receptions to president's children at the White House. Pretty sure that their weddings would have been equally (if not more) covered by the media at time. Is his engagement to Tiffany, arguably Trump's least-known child, all that exceptionally notable compared to all other engagements to president's children? Heck, in two weeks, I bet many people who read about it may have forgotten that Tiffany Trump is engaged. SecretName101 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being engaged to a child of a former president of the US is not a sign of notability. Nothing else about Boulos yet adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I belive we once had an article on Jenna Bush Hager's husband. I distinctly remember reading it. It may even have been from when he was her fiance. That would have been back in 2008 or so, and back then we allowed a lot more stuff on Wikipedia than we do now (although we have current discussions about articles that have existed since 2004 and seem to never had an indepdent source). Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and consensus changes. For the record I have never been convinced we should have an article on Tiffany Trump.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Factfanatic1: pinging you, as you are the page's primary contributor. Thought you should be aware that this deletion discussion is being had. SecretName101 (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I did not need to do this. They were also the page's creator. They were notified automatically when I created this deletion nomination. SecretName101 (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for reliable secondary sources covering him independently of Tiffany Trump turns up nothing, and notability is not something that reflects from person to person. Even if it did, he would still be non-notable as the subject of an independent article per WP:ONEEVENT - in this case, his engagement. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As WP:ONEEVENT puts it, It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". —ThorstenNY (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he’s certainly famous for being Tiffany’s boyfriend for an extended period and that will continue in the future. He is notable in his own right for being groomed as a business executive for a multi-billion dollar company. This doesn’t feel like the examples from WP:ONEEVENT like the driver of a train that crashed or a member of the public who filmed police violence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons detailed by user Eraserhead1. --Midrashah (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete came here wanting to defend the article, but searches on Nexis Uni for ("Michael Boulos" AND nigerian) and ("Michael Boulos" AND heir) both turned up nothing pre-2018. So that makes me think there is no way to use sources to establish his independent notability. If you can't establish WP:N with WP:RS, he's a delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he is run of the mill as a business person, and has has not done anything notable. We are Wikipedia, not 15SecondsOfFamepedia, nor Conservapedia, nor a free web host, and in 2021 everybody knows that. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv Verma[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is a leading role in an unreleased film, which I also nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Means No (film)). Since the film will be released within 6 months, and that might cause this person to "become notable" as Wikipedia defines the term, I recommend an outcome of move to Draft:, with a requirement that it go through WP:AFC. Note that the film becoming "notable" does not mean this actor automatically becomes "notable" and vice-versa. However, if one does "achieve notability" the odds are significantly higher that the other also will. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need to nip in the bud this creation of articles before people are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Agree with nom's recommendation to draftify unless the film is kept. If it is deemed notable, no issue with a redirect of the actor to the film until such time as independent notability is established. StarM 02:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: Just to clarify, it is possible that the film may not become "notable" in the next few months but the actor might. For example, he may get picked up for another film which generates enough significant, independent coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article while the current-upcoming film does not. Unlikely, but possible. I had not considered the option of redirecting the page about the actor to that of the film if the film becomes notable but the actor does not. I'll have to think about that before supporting or opposing that outcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Most likely UPE/CoI spam. RationalPuff (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV Jenyire2 (talk) 07:24, 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 Draftify seems to be the consensus.. Sourcing, and suggestions for sourcing, were added, but not to the extent that there now is a consensus to keep. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Means No (film)[edit]

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

Currently fails WP:NFILM, unreleased, no evidence that production itself is notable. Since it will be released within 6 months, I recommend a result of move to Draft: with a requirement that it go through WP:AFC. After 6 months, if it is not edited by a person and not approved through WP:AFC, it will be "soft-deleted" through the normal WP:G13 stale-draft-deletion cleanup. No evidence it meets any other notability criteria at this time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: I also nominated the page about the lead actor, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhruv Verma. Currently, I do not think either the actor or this film meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion. It is possible that one or both will do so within 6 months. If either one does, the odds of the other doing so are significantly higher. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOOSOON Donaldd23 (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There was some coverage in Polish media in 2018: [2] (Dziennik Zachodni), [3] (Super Express, but that's like Polish Daily Mail...)... nothing since. Borderline IMHO, but could be rescued? Also it supposed to have a premier in two months, which might generate coverage. Wish there was a way to check back on such drafts in 2-3 months. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I am recommending draftification with a firm AFC requirement instead of deletion specifically because the movie will premiere within the 6-month time window and, if it does become a notable topic, there's no need to "start from scratch." There IS a way to check back on drafts in 2-3 months, I'll leave details on your talk page. Regarding Polish-language sources, if there are reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage, please provide a rough summary translation on the article's talk page and post a note here. Also, if the film currently meets the criteria for an article on the Polish-language Wikipedia, please write one and link it to the English-language one, even if the link will be broken if this page is deleted or draftified. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to pass both GNG and NFILM. There is no rule that we cannot have pages on unreleased movies, and we often have pages before filming even begins. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 21:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, User:El cid, el campeador, there are rules for unreleased films...WP:NFF. One of the points is "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." This film doesn't appear to have a notable production. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have extensively researched the first Indo-polish movie “No means No” also known as "Nie Means Nie" and have found articles from the notable sources:

   01. Bennett & Coleman’s 100 years old leading newspaper The Times of India articles covering the production house and the project “No means No”
       Article in Times of India
       Article 02 in Times of India
   02. Mid-day Newspaper Article 
       Article
   03. Cineblitz
       Article in Cineblitz
   04. Interview of Mr. Vikash Verma on Republic TV, Poland
       Interview
   05. Start of Filming of the Movie
       Start of Filming of the Movie
       Title
   
     The production can be classified as notable with finding of my research as below:
     A. As the government officials of Poland mentioning in their tweet
       Tweet
     B. The cast of the film are notable actors with vast industry experience of more than 400 films, like Gulshan Grover, Sharad Kapoor, Armaan Kohli & Hariharan the legendary Music Director & Singers like Shreya Ghoshal are working with this production house.
     C. The content can be supported with various articles and pictures showing up on google search which can be counted to be more than 200 articles from notable sources.
     D. These articles and sources are also listed on the IMDB Pro page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiedesai (talk • contribs) 19:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Archiedesai: Thank you. While the sources aren't the best (even The Times of India is not always reliable per WP:TOI), this is exactly the kind of "rescue effort" that could save this topic, if the sources check out as being reliable, independent, and in-depth. If you find anything in-depth from a source listed as reliable in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources or which is NOT listed as unreliable there and is well-known enough as a reliable source that nobody will question it, that might just do the trick. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: Thank you so very much Sir for your support and the trick for the page to stay. More reliable sources were found mentioning the Movie and also world renowned music director/singer Mr. Hariharan(Singer) acknowledging his association with the movie on Zee News which is within the reliable source list and should do the trick. More notable & reliable sources links mentioned below covering the movie “No means No”

Comment @davidwr : Sir, I am amazed to find an article in print as well as on digital platform in the world renowned newspaper “The Hindu” which is in the reliable list of Wikipedia, with an in depth independent beautiful article on the movie “No means No”, a movie on women empowerment.

Please go through the article, which also says that The Prime Minister & Dy Prime Minister, Ms. Margaret Pepek, the member of parliament & chairwoman of the Polish & Indian Parliamentary group, the diplomatic heads of both India & Poland to the likes of His excellency Mr. Ajay Bisaria (former Indian Ambassador to Poland & now High Commissioner to Canada), are supporting the movie.

The Production house G7 Films has already started working on their next movie The Good Maharaja - a true story on World War II.

Also few more articles were found covering the film in the wikipedia reliable source list newspaper & digital platform of LOKMAT & Boxoffice India, published in last 2-3 days.

https://www.lokmat.com/bollywood/music-director-sajid-khan-impressed-indo-polish-film-no-means-no-a589/

https://boxofficeindia.co.in/bollywood%E2%80%99s-action-star-dhruv-verma-gears-surprise-his-indo-polish-film-no-means-no

The Production House G7 Films & Director have been awarded for the initiative taken by them to strengthen the bilateral relationship of the two nations by the Government of Bihar.

The film being the first Indo-Polish movie is itself carries the credentials of being listed on encyclopaedia as being the first of its kind.

The web search results with more than 200 independent article for the Movie and its internationally acclaimed artists and musicians, who have worked in the film, and haven’t found any press conference undertaken by the production house.

The movie and the production house is also supported by Govt. of Poland and has been acknowledged through a tweet on their official Tweeter Handle.

I trust your support and your wide experience will do justice and allow the article to remain live and remove from the deletion list. Archiedesai (talk)

Keep - “No means No”, searching on google, found the first Indo-Polish film "No Means No”. Article on reliable sources like Zee News of Zee Media, India’s one of the biggest News Website ABP Live and also there are youtube video on India’s two biggest news channel name as ABP Bihar owned by ABP News Network and Bihar tak owned by India Today Television. Everyday there is a news reporting about the movie and its production house G7 Films. With the prominent Film Personalities like Gulshan Grover (worked in more than 400 Hollywood & Bollywood movies), is an actor in the film, Shreya Ghosal is the singer in the movie, whose statue is placed at Madam Tussaad’s Museum, and Mission Impossible famed choreographer Shiamak Davar has choreographed this film.
1. Zee News article of 18th December, 2020
2. ABP Live is an Indian Hindi news website owned by ABP News Network which has covered the Movie "No Means No"
3. ABP Bihar is an Indian Hindi news channel is owned by ABP News Network speaks about the movie "No means No"
4. Bihar Tak is an Indian Hindi News channel owned by India Today Television also provide information on the movie "No means No".01lt (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@01lt: Thank you. Based on translate.google.com, the Zeenews article of 18th December, 2020 is significant coverage of Dhruv Verma but not of this film. I cannot judge the independence or reliability of that article, but since it is not "in depth" I didn't need to. Do you have examples that include in-depth coverage of this film, particularly of its production? Remember, the proposed outcome of this discussion is to move it into "Draft:" space rather than immediate deletion. My expectation is that if this film is released in wide-release, there is a reasonable chance - but by no means a certainty - that this film, like many wide-release films before it, will receive the in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources needed to satisfy WP:Notability/WP:NFILM. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. Found one source by The Hindu [4] about the film. Coverage in more reliable and independent sources might be seen once the film is released. Currently, WP:TOOSOON. Ashley yoursmile! 05:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Davidwr::

The project is supported and appreciated by various noted personalities of film industry, and also by noted politician and bureaucrats as per various new articles that I have come across during the research on the project.

I am sure my learned friend @Davidwr: will note and understand that these personalities are highly responsible towards the society and their backing and support doesn’t come without the credibility of the project.

I have come across more independent news articles in reliable news papers and publications such as the The Hindu & Mid-day, in addition to more than 200+ article from various Indian as well as international news agencies. The article in The Hindu^[1] & Mid-Day^[2] for your ready reference.

I therefore stand for the article to remain live and request you to please remove it from the list of Article for deletion (AFD) and allow the article remain live. By doing so it will do justice to the article.

Archiedesai (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Indo-Polish-Action-Thriller-aims-to-rekindle-bilateral-ties". The Hindu.
^ "Films have power to break boundaries". Mid-day. 2021-01-29.

A better link for "Films have power to break boundaries":

"Films have the power to break boundaries". 2021-01-29. Archived from the original on 2021-01-29. Retrieved 2021-01-31.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Davidwr::

Thank you so much @Davidwr:, necessary correction is done on my comment.

However, Few more article^[1]^[2] & Listings found on Lokmat & Bollywood Hungama. --------- Archiedesai (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Lokmat". Lokmat.
^ "Bollywood Hungama". Bollywood Hungama.

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-105[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO. Zero popular coverage and no scientific publications that I could find specifically about this star or a small number of stars. Lithopsian (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I created the page to have a place for KOI-115.03 to redirect to. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC) ~~Merge~~ Redirect It is not notable, we could ~~merge~~ redirect it into the (very long) list of Kepler planets. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: KOI-115.03 is an unconfirmed planet candidate, and the only link to it is on List of smallest exoplanets. At one point I commented out the list entry, but that was reverted. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence whatever of satisfying the notability guidelines. The one cited source could not by any stretch be considered to be substantial coverage; it just confirms that the star exists and gives a few trivial details such as it size. As for keeping the article because it exists in order to have a redirect to it, that must be one of the most bizarre reasons for keeping I have ever seen in any deletion discussion. We have redirects because they help to lead to articles on notable subjects, not the other way around. JBW (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's plenty of papers mentioning Kepler-105, but always as just one item in a long list of stars. That's not enough for notability. Tercer (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one reference doesn't establish notability, and the content of the article itself is minimal, providing little to merge.PopePompus (talk) 00:22, 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 delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshini (actress)[edit]

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

It might be a BLP that fails WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST. I was able to find one article [[5]]. Nothing else on WP BEFORE. I tried to do research and clean up article, but I think it won't worth it. Tags asking proofs of GNG and add'l citations have been there for 10 YEARS. I am happy for any feedback. Thank you! Kolma8 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a totally unsourced page with no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR RationalPuff (talk) 13:24, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RP Singh Maini[edit]

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

The article has no independent sources at all, just some of the subject's social media sites. I've searched for sources, but all that I can find are brief name-checks - either about his move from BJP to SAD, or mentioning his name when reporting on an announcement he made in his capacity as a spokesperson - none of them have any biographical content at all. I don't believe there is any provision for the role of spokesperson in WP:NPOL, so plain old WP:GNG would need to be met, and I don't believe it is. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam and promotional. Fails WP:NPOL RationalPuff (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GN and NPOL. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:08, 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 keep. Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neston High School[edit]

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

No citations that are currently active. All information is unsourced, failing to meet WP:NOTE and likely WP:INDEPENDENT ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG, which is the applicable criterion. No independent references, and I can't find anything online outside of routine news coverage. The article contains no claim of notability; it just looks to me like a run-of-the-mill high school. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a redirect to List of schools in Cheshire West and Chester, just in case someone searched for this school. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails not only WP:GNG, but it also astoundingly fails WP:INDEPENDENT. School has received no major awards or accolades, just a regular, non-notable secondary school.--Kieran207 talk 22:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Available sources sufficient to establish notability, as with any other British secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying this article meets WP:ORG? If so, how? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schools do not have to pass WP:ORG if they pass WP:GNG. See WP:ORG#Schools. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article now has a number of independent sources establishing notability. Bleaney (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like the sources are either not independent, local, extremely trivial, or not related to the school. For instance the one about the constable is nto about the school in any way that matters. Also, most of the "sources" are really only one source. Since they are from the same outlet. So, this doesn't meet the relevant notability guidelines IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perfectly adequate sources. This is yet another attempt to delete a school -because it is normal. All you have to do is to control-F this page for the phrase run-of-the mill, which is allowed, though some non local editors have a POV contrary to policy. This has all been explained in great depth in the Articles for deletion/Putteridge High School. I haven't even started to read the ofsted reports, which as an editor are your first port of call to understand the school and where you need look for additional Secondary RSs. The article is a Start, but could be a lot better if everyone here used their advanced skills on improving it! ClemRutter (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my standards. There's plenty of good sources, and there's even a notable alumnus. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I've been contemplating the notable alumnus thing in relation to another an AfD for another school, that seems to lack reliable sources, but has a ton of notable alumnus. Where do you think the line is and when do you think it would cross over to becoming "notability through inheritance" or whatever. Like I don't think an article for that has multiple national politicians should necessarily be deleted just it lacks adequate, but then there's still things like WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources look fine to me. I have added some referenced info about the school's history, with an interesting quote from Selwyn Lloyd. Given the age of the school and its importance to the community (it's a very large school and has a sixth form), I think it's very likely that other paper sources exist. Tacyarg (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Easily meets WP:GNG now with good regional coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine D. Wood[edit]

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

"Best stock picker of 2020" is not a basis for notability, nor is being a CEO of a run-of-the-mill company in the financial space. BD2412 T 19:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I'm very surprised by this nomination. Cathie Wood is the subject of simply colossal media coverage -- I don't care one bit about investing and even I had read a news profile about her. I'm actually worried about trying to put together a GNG argument because there's such a huge volume of coverage that picking articles to represent the whole is hard, because I'll have to leave out hundreds of sources that could satisfy GNG, so I really encourage any !voters to please scroll through the google hits rather than responding to the sources I'll list here. But as a starting place, GNG is more than covered by these 5 articles I arbitrarily pulled from just the first 2 pages of google search results: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty clearly seems to meet the GNG, judging from Astrophobe's sources as well as many others. Perhaps the nominator searched for "Catherine D. Wood" instead of "Cathie Wood"? In any event, it looks to me like there's more than adequate coverage in reliable sources (Forbes, Barrons, Bloomberg, etc.). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior, and seconding Astrophobe's surprise as someone else familiar with her despite not paying attention to the relevant sphere. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and the information and sources I've added to the article, e.g. Wood's Ark Innovation was the largest actively-managed exchange-traded fund in 2020 [1][2], and in January 2021, ARK filed plans for ARK Space Exploration ETF with the Securities and Exchange Commission to "primarily track U.S. and global companies engaged in space exploration and innovation." [3] Beccaynr (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also like to note the December 28, 2020 Wikipedia Signpost Essay "Subjective Importance," which states "A common misconception about notability is that importance or uniqueness equals notability" and "The main point of the notability guideline is to provide objective criteria for inclusion rather than subjective criteria such as importance which depend on an individual's perspective on the subject." The objective criteria for inclusion appear to be met, due to the substantial coverage of Wood in independent and reliable sources over time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy keep. She is mentioned in numerous news sources, like Bloomberg (interview), CNBC and many others. [6] Aude (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Just because someone disagrees on her position-picking ability does not mean the page should be deleted. The reality is that she is a very influential figure in the financial world right now, and as such, certainly warrants a dedicated page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:780:2B10:29FA:4CE3:21A7:5966 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I can't understand this discussion. Cathy Woods and als her firm Ark Invest are obviously relevant. --Afus199620 (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is a very notable investor, there are numerous articles in the financail press, i.e. Financial Times + Wall Street Journal about her. --Devokewater (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Cathie Woods brought sparks in ETF industry. Her firm Ark Invest manages largest ETFs. Shankargb (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has received significant coverage in Forbes, Bloomberg, CNBC, Citywire, among others, so passes WP:GNG. Ashley yoursmile! 13:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. I'm not sure where this nom comes from, especially from someone whom I respect. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian:, the article has substantially improved from when I found it, but I was also piqued by it having a promotional tone and having been created by a relatively new and low-participation editor. I didn't mention these aspects in the nom because I frankly didn't feel that it stood on the assertion of notability of the subject in the first place. Stock pickers are a dime a dozen. BD2412 T 06:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is 100% right on and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:646:E4A2:5811:4677:6728:C344 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved IP's comment into archive after discussion was closed since it was misplaced outside the section. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:43, 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 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kidilol Kidilam[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) 18:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the editing of the plot of the movie is a bit off from what one'd expect on WP, but nonetheless a very entertaining reading. Kolma8 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:57, 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 delete. — The Earwig ^talk 00:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veech, Kentucky[edit]

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

I find this one a bit confusing. Rennick discusses a Veechdale that was a post office near a RR station, and a Veechland post office that only served a Mason old folk's home, but no "Veech". Rennick's index calls Veech a locale (geography) without explaining it. Topos show isolated rural point with only a handful of buildings. Newspapers.com and Gbooks hits appear to all be for last names. I'm seeing no evidence that WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG are met. Hog Farm _Talk 18:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Then create a news stub if necessary, after closing. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Stober[edit]

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

At best, there might be a very weak presumption of notability from her 10 minutes of Frauen-Bundesliga football, however, she has never played at a level that would allow her to pass WP:NFOOTBALL.

These were the non-database sources that I found:

[7] - a routine announcement of her signing for Essen
[8] - a trivial mention; the article is focused on a different goalkeeper
[9] - mentioned once
[10] - this is from a club website (a club that she played for, so does not support notability)

In my opinion, Stober does not meet WP:GNG at this moment in time. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both GNG and football notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage in online German-language sources of this particular Lara Stober (there are several others). Fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:22, 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 speedy close. Page speedily deleted and create protected. (non-admin closure) Safiel (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden[edit]

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

Too early, Biden has not yet even made any judicial nominations. In any event, this article exists in the draft namespace and at the appropriate time, that article should be moved to the article namespace. Safiel (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted as a duplicate of content already in draft space. I have redirected the title to Presidency of Joe Biden for now. When a judicial nomination is made, the draft can be moved over this redirect. BD2412 T 18:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 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. Fenix down (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ninon Kalpein[edit]

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

A footballer who has spent the majority of her career playing 4th tier or below in Germany. Even the top tier is not listed at WP:FPL so it goes without saying that she fails WP:NFOOTBALL.

PROD rationale was a BLP on a subject that does not appear to meet WP:GNG

Contested with May meet GNG - if her breaking her leg before a match is noteworthy, then perhaps she is noteworthy - https://www.hellwegeranzeiger.de/sport/kurioser-grund-fuer-spielabsage-des-tus-niederaden-plus-1383136.html

This was what I found in my WP:BEFORE search:

[11] - trivial mention in match report
[12] - as mentioned in the PROD contesting rationale, this does mention her breaking her leg
[13] - name check
[14] - name check
[15] - name check
[16] - name check
[17] - a few trivial mentions in a football fan magazine
[18] - as above

To be fair, given the level that she played at, it's impressive that she amassed so many name checks but, still, not enough for WP:GNG as none of them do anything to actually establish biographical notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not even meet our insanely broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VanCompare.com[edit]

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

Fails both WP:WEB and WP:NCORP. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little more than glorified advertising. Exactly what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, couldn't find one single RS mention, let alone sigcov. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Spudlace (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete per rationale. Promotional and not notable. --Kemalcan (talk) 13:48, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Heep[edit]

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

A footballer that largely spent her career playing regional, amateur football and has never played in a league listed at WP:FPL or had a senior international cap, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Most Frauen-Bundesliga players pass WP:GNG, however, it does not look like Heep does. This article is referenced entirely to database entries and the German language article is only referenced to club websites and database entries, none of which confer notability.

In a WP:BEFORE search, I only found these non-database independent sources:

[19] - just a name check
[20] - mentioned once
[21] - very, very brief article that does nothing to support notability

Since she had very little playing time in the Bundesliga, I'm not hopeful of finding anything better. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet either GNG nor our notability guidelines for football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 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 redirect to CornerShot. — The Earwig ^talk 01:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Golan[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. All coverage is about CornerShot, not about this person. Notability is not inherited. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both This articles should be expanded, not deleted. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Both? What other article is being proposed for deletion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand using coverage in what reliable sources? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CornerShot. Plausible redirect as inventor of a notable device, but not individually notable per either WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG/WP:NPERSON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The Bushranger. Intothat darkness 21:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear failure of the multiple sources required for passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. ImTheIP (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:The Bushranger, fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Inventor, that seems notable. He hold 20 patents >> https://patents.justia.com/inventor/amos-golan There is a professor of economics named Amos Golan. This should be checked out to see if this is the same person before this is deleted. Durindaljb (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither "inventor" or "lots of patents" confers notability. Are you arguing he passes WP:NPROF? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:40, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hooper, Kentucky[edit]

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

I don't think this one meets WP:GEOLAND. Not in Rennick's Shelby County directory, and his index calls it a locale (geography) without describing it. Topos show a railroad point with a single building. Newspapers.com is difficult to search due to the commonness of "Hooper" as a name, but I am finding a number of hits to a Hooper's Station in Shelby county, which seems to have just been a railroad station with no community. Google Books confirms that it was a railroad point with no post office, but that's about it. WP:STATION is only an essay, but has some advice on this subject. I don't think this is a notable place. Hog Farm _Talk 17:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 17:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ungoverned cities are are not notable. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but a train depot which was later moved to nearby Shelbyville. (pics here) Never an actual settlement.--Kieran207 talk 00:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to the assertions of Cupper52, ungoverned cities are notable, but there's no evidence that this comes even close to being one. Granted, the standard is lower than that, but it still fails to meet it as others have explained. Smartyllama (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 20:54, 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 keep. — The Earwig ^talk 01:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Wasserman[edit]

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

This article has existed for over 15 years, yet it has nothing even close to being a reliable source. The one source in the article is an interviews, which would not add to notability on most occasions. However this gets worse, it is an interview where Wasserman was the one conducting the interview. This is essentially like using the fact that someone wrote and published a biographical sketch of someone else where they maybe made a few asides about themselves as a source to show the write of that sketch was notable. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on sources about a person, not sources by a person. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

for what it is worth the creator of this article has been blocked for 5 years. Although considering how old this article is, it is slightly surprising the article was created with a real account instead of just an IP address. Wikipedia still suffers from having had no creation or notability guidelines for the first 5 or so years of its existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, you have been a very frequent nominator and participant at AFD for a very long time. So, I am surprised you would make this argument. While there are former contributors, who were subsequently blocked, who were openly or covertly trying to undermine the wikipedia from their first day there are also lots of former contributor, who are now blocked, who put in years of solid contributions. That second group ended up being blocked for a variety of reasons: sometimes they developed one bad habit, they couldn't or wouldn't mend; sometimes there was one topic that was highly charged for them, like, say abortion, and they couldn't or wouldn't stop making biased edits around that topic and related topics.

For those contributors we should assume that their contributions, prior to the activity that triggered their block were good faith competent edits that shouldn't be deleted or reverted simply because they were now blocked.

In this particular case the revision history trivially shows that now blocked Skookum1 was not the sole contributor to the article. So his initiation of the article would not be grounds to delete the article, even if we agreed to delete everything for which he had been the sole author. edits not made by Skookum1 more edits not made by Skookum1

So, please, never make this argument again. Geo Swan (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, I am going to point out that Skookum1's indefinite block took place almost a decade after their major work on this article. Geo Swan (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ANYBIO. Finding and adding more sources is a matter of cleanup not deletion per WP:ATD and WP:NEXIST. See here for some details of the subject. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew, the sources exist and since it's not a BLP the unsourced material doesn't provide an immediate reason to delete the page. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure if this fellow is notable or not. I have never heard of him before. It looks like there may be sources here, here, here and possibly here. Not sure if those and others amount to him passing WP:GNG though. It is unacceptable that this article doesn't have any sources though. Even the one external link is broken, but it is now here, so I will fix that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References existed, and Andrew Davidson and I added some. So deletion due to no references is no longer a valid justification for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I know he was a reporter for the Vancouver Sun, but it's still worth noting that they devoted almost all of the front page on April 7, 1977, to coverage of his death. He also had a (short) obit in The Globe and Mail written by The Canadian Press. Didn't find much else substantial, hence the weak keep. I have to note, though, that this from the so-called "Museum of BC Radio History" (= a blog) is not reliable and certainly not evidence of notability. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew and per the reason for deletion (no sources) no longer applying. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. — Toughpigs (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources present or cited here demonstrate substantial coverage. The best we get are local obituaries (WP:NOTMEMORIAL). That's not good enough. If he is notable, a bio of him should be included in some later source, like some work about notably Canadian journalists. Such a work has not been presented here (ping me if better sources are found and I'll reconsider my vote). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent rescue and expansion work by Geo Swan, Andrew, and Aleatory Ponderings. Cbl62 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the WP:GNG if nothing else. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG; obituary in a newspaper of record. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OGdoings[edit]

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

Current sources don't passes WP:GNG Setreis (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was writing an AfD at the same time, you beat me to it :-) The "Awards" are totally unverifiable, and otherwise no good sources at all are available (36 Ghits, nothing on GNews at all). The website exists, the remainder of the article is basically a hoax. Fram (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely and utterly fails WP:NWEB; sweet Fanny Adams found in a search Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — COI article of a non notable website/organization of which the article creator is the owner. Celestina007 (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that this is a COI issue. Purely promotional, fails WP:NWEB. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above. Akronowner (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most sources are their own website and agree with all the above comments. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:11, 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. It's snowing. Randykitty (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Yanling[edit]

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

Non-notable scientist who worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is being used by conspiracy theorists to claim that the virus leaked in the laboratory. We should not be entertaining the use of Wikipedia for speculation and misinformation. RexxS (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RexxS (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. RexxS (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. RexxS (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for lots of reasons, mostly as a possible BLP that is complete speculation. A WP:BLPREMOVE would leave nothing. - Astrophobe (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: The subject of this article is a private individual who has made no attempt to seek publicity, and who is only known because of an evidence-free conspiracy theory that circulated on Chinese social media about a year ago. The article is just a summary of wild speculation about a private individual. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF, for starters; more importantly, as argued above, this kind of speculation and tabloid-at-best reporting (the NZ Herald is just laundering the Mail on Sunday, which is deprecated for good reason) in a BLP is completely unsuitable. XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator: The subject is a person of interest in the origins of Covid-19, as covered by a number of reliable sources. Besides for the NZ Herald, an earlier version of the article also referenced articles from Deutsche Welle (in German and Chinese), The Jerusalem Post, United Press International, and Forbes, as well as an official counter statement by Xinhua News Agency, the official state-run press agency of the PRC. If there are concerns as to how the rumors on Weibo are presented, then more counter statements (such as this) can be added to bring the article on this notable person into NPOV. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes item was a "Contributor" piece, not a reliable source (and the author writes about "business and investing in emerging markets", so there's absolutely no subject-matter expert factor to consider, even setting aside the high standards we have to maintain for biographies of living people and medical matters). ScienceNet.cn is a blogging collective of unclear editorial standards which should not be used in a BLP either. NPOV isn't about saying one good thing for every bad thing; it's about fairly reflecting the available RS in accord with our standards, and here, our standards indicate that there's nothing to say. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you about the Forbes piece. But what about the other sources? Is this subject not notable based on their coverage? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post report is a pure speculation piece. Look at the sources it uses for its content: "According to various reports", "According to one theory", "Another theory relating to Huang's disappearance", "international pressure has been mounting on China", "a post was uploaded to the Chinese instant messaging platform WeChat". The only attributed source was in "the virology research center where she worked has denied that Huang was the first COVID-19 patient", which contradicts the nebulous sources. There is nothing there but smoke and mirrors.

The NZ Herald is known for reprinting British news pieces and that source is nothing more than a regurgitation of the Daily Mail's take on the conspiracy theory. The Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia for good reason.

UPI's article is about the WHO investigators in China and mentions Huang Yanling in just one place, which calls the theory a rumour.

The Deutsche Welle source discusses what it calls "conspiracy theories" and "rumours" about the source of the outbreak, mentioning Huang in passing.

The biography on Research Gate is hardly an independent source by any stretch of the imagination.

This article is sourced from a mish-mash of low quality journalistic speculation and passing mentions of Huang within discussions of conspiracy theories. That is a long way short of the quality of sources we need for a WP:BLP of an unremarkable scientist, and does not even represent the "significant coverage" in "independent reliable sources" that we insist on for WP:BASIC. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia policy allowed for determining the quality of journalism from a reliable source. I suppose this is the case, given your level of experience, but I would appreciate if you can point me to the relevant section in WP:RS so that I can learn about it. I would be happy to change my nomination to delete for now, and if something new comes up (unlikely, but possible), we can revisit this discussion. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:RSP lists the reliability of various sources, including the likes of the Daily Mail. You might want to also cross out your original !vote, if you're changed your view. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think to check until just now, but the above !vote is from the article creator; that doesn't affect the intrinsic merit of the argument one way or the other, but I think it's generally considered good form to note significant prior involvement with an article for the record. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I affixed a note in my nomination above.ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One possible solution could be creating page COVID-19 patient zero. That would be a perfectly valid and important subject with sources like [22], [23],[24],[25], etc. I believe this is a biological, rather than medical question, and partly a political controversy, hence MEDRS sources are not necessarily required. Obviously, this a part of a bigger subject, i.e. Origins of COVID-19. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At best that would be WP:1E, more likely it would end up as an WP:ATTACK. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page COVID-19 patient zero would not be about this one person (there is no sufficient evidence this is Huang Yanling), but about the search for patient zero for COVID-19. This is a much wider subject - please check sources above and

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a suggested move or merge for this page, it would encourage wild speculation about individuals. Otherwise you're proposing a page unrelated to this AfD. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Yanling would have to be mentioned on the page I suggested because he/she was named in first three RS currently on this page. To be named a patient zero is not a crime, and mentioning this is not a violation of BLP or anything. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this biography is wholly based on a conspiracy with zero credibility among scientists and almost no credibility anywhere else. It's effectively a POV fork that misuses another human being to accomplish its aims. Also note RexxS that the same user who created this page also just created another POV fork, Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. While that topic is of great interest to scientists who have already written a number of strong papers on the issue (including in Nature), those papers — considered the gold standard so far — are not cited anywhere in this article. I think there should be an investigation into the editors who are apparently spreading this nonsense all across Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Snow close — the editor who created this page changed their vote to delete, meaning that nobody is now arguing to keep the page. In the mean time the page creator has also been topic banned from COVID-related topics. -Darouet (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete Nothing else to add, others have already said what I was going to. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's looking like WP:SNOW. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails academic notability. Being paitent zero of a disease is not ground for notability, especially when such is not reliably sourced. I do not have any hope we will in this life learn the full truth of the origins of COVID-19, but that is not ground for Wikipedia just repeating non-reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nella Cotrupi[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and unsuccessful political candidate, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion standards in either field. People aren't notable just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, so her notability has to be assessed entirely on her writing -- but this is not referenced to sufficient third-party critical analysis about her writing to get her over WP:GNG, and instead it is referenced almost entirely to her own writing metaverifying its own existence in primary sources like academic thesis directories and the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations. To be fair, the article was created in 2010, when both our notability and sourcing rules were different than they are now, but articles aren't exempted from having to be improvable just because they were technically acceptable a decade ago -- and on a search for better, more GNG-worthy sourcing, I just can't find anything but glancing namechecks of her existence in raw tables of election results from her political candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's well reasoned nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous comment at WT:CANADA. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found and added to the article three reviews of her book, and found evidence that there might be a fourth. But that's all I found. That's not out of the ordinary for this kind of book and one academic book with that many academic reviews isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, nor even enough to suggest making an article about the book instead of its author. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 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. — The Earwig ^talk 01:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinnodu Peddodu[edit]

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

Did not find any reliable source for the film except its songs: [26]. Still not enough to save it. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The references in the article are arbitrary...one is supposed to reference that the film was a "super hit" but there is nothing is actually there to sya that. Kolma8 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG fail. WilliamSpeare (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 23:11, 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 no consensus. Per Daniel, looks like the discussion has run out of steam. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Stauffer[edit]

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

An individual with no evidence of any notability. All the refs are blogs , personal websites or family trees published on genealogy web-sites. There is no assertion of notability and any claims that are made are modified by terms such as "...may have been..." and "is connected to family members that eventually headed to the United States". No claim to notability, no evidence of notability, searches reveal no hidden notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when one of the biggest points in a biography is framed as the person "may" have been involved, and the main selling point is an descendant about 200 years later was involved in founding a community, we have nothing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not genealogy, and there is zero coverage in reliable sources. The descendant (whose article was created by the same user) doesn't look too notable either, and in any event notability doesn't pass in the bloodstream. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If true, this man just might be notable, but we would need reliable sources for this, not mere genealogy sites. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - lots of Europeans of his time can trace their descent to prominent North Americans. Think of all the Logans and Lohans. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG: source 1, source 2, source 3. Also, per this source, he was a bishop, WP:NBISHOP states that bishops are kept.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per Epiphyllumlover, appears to meet GNG, if only barely. Not all of the sources refer to this Christian Stauffer, but the ones that do appear sufficient. (NBISHOP, which is only an essay anyway, doesn't apply to non-Catholics like Stauffer.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because Wikipedia should not discriminate between different Christian denominations, NBISHOP ought to be applied to non-Catholics.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term "bishop" has very different meanings across denominations and as such should not confer blanket notability without a specific determination of its context. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as according to the book sources he was a leader in the local movement, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm currently sceptical. If this guy had been a leader of any significance even in a local revolt he'd be mentioned in the quite comprehensive Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, but he isn't. The sources in the article appear quite useless genealogy-type and SPS stuff, and all but the first of Epiphyllumlover's Google Books links don't work for me; in the first he is briefly mentioned as a leader of a local revolt (of which there were many in that time and place, the Republic of Bern being quite brutal in its approach to local government and religious nonconformity). Sandstein 16:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can search --- "Christian Stauffer" Anabaptist --- on Google books if my links don't work.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not persuaded by the keep arguments when I view the article, but currently not persuaded by the delete arguments either. Heading towards a no consensus close but giving it another 7 days of air to see if further eyes can push this one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a descendant of Christian Stauffer. The book The Stauffer Families of Switzerland, Germany, and America (including Stover and Stauffer) by Richard Warren Davis speaks of Christian Stauffer Anabaptist (Mennonite faith). Due to religious beliefs, he would not take the oath of allegiance to the Swiss government, nor bear arms in the army. Considering the number of wars going on in Europe at that time, this was of great concern to the Swiss government. In 1644, Christian Stauffer of Eggiwil, the youngest son of the Hans Stauffer of Rothenbach was a preacher of the Anabaptists and was tracked down and thrown into prison at Thun. More information can be found at http://family.beacondeacon.com/stauffer.htm I don't know if this is enough for you to make a decision on maintaining this page. Canastota (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no doubt of considerable interest to the family and in the locality, but it doesn't add anything to notability as defined by Wikipedia. The source would not pass muster as an independent and reliable source Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Canastota, because Wikipedia policies, they can't use your link to support keeping the article. They need something that has been published by a third party, that is, someone who was not a family member, and is not self-publishing their own work. If you have any newspaper articles or history books discussing your ancestor, you could quote them and cite them here. They don't have to be online. For an example of the sort of sources to look for, see the three links I posted above. (Those three sources should be good enough as is to keep the article; yet it is good to have more since any evaluation of them will be inherently subjective. If for some legitimate reason (or even illegitimate pretext) they are thrown out, others can fill the void.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:14, 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 merge to Beer in Australia. Sandstein 19:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beer in Tasmania[edit]

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

It's just an unsourced list of non-notable breweries. There doesn't seem to be any similar lists for other states in Australia and this list doesn't seem useful. Suonii180 (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is just a drive-by nomination which is not useful because it fails to respect our policies such as WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE and WP:IMPERFECT. It is easy to improve the page, as I shall demonstrate, and this is more useful than deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Boutique beers, pub beers and craft beers are on the rise and rise, particularly with online orders during the pandemic. Lots of reviews in Broadsheets, and newspaper coverage in the last 12 months. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Notable subject with sources. Not even a merge into Beer in Australia seems appropriate due to that article being pretty bloated already. ~EdGl talk 19:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Beer in Australia is my new recommendation after further investigation and per the recent !votes below. It's hard to find sources and content for anything except for its two largest breweries. The "bloat" in the Beer in Australia article I mentioned in my earlier comment can be dealt with separately. ~EdGl talk 18:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a patent example of what WP:NOTDIR is supposed to prevent. Boutique and micro-brewing are everywhere, and its very ubiquity is why a list of otherwise NN breweries ought not to be an article. Mangoe (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not List of breweries in Tasmania, it's Beer in Tasmania, with apparently almost 200 years of history. The article should be improved (history expanded, and list of breweries trimmed, removed, or converted to prose), not deleted. ~EdGl talk 14:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, almost all the content is List of breweries in Tasmania, and the rest is either trivial (1824) or ephemeral (who the biggest brewers and their markets are). This is one of those times where I'm tempted to write Wikipedia:You need to prove it can be fixed, as right now the article says what everyone already knows about every place colonized by Europeans: grains were brewed into alcohol as soon as the colonists could manage it, and recently the dominance of industrial production has been supplemented by a resurgence in small-scale brewing. For Tasmania to need a separate article, it needs something that distinguishes it, and right now the article says the opposite. Mangoe (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Many or most topics are about examples of a common type such as the large number of articles about lighthouses which Mangoe has written. Topics are not required to be special, distinctive or otherwise unusual. This is an encyclopedia and so not limited to marvels and oddities. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, WP:N does say that there needs to be something distinctive, a low level of distinction, to be sure, but right now this is rather like what someone might write about Beer in Montgomery County, Maryland: I'm pretty sure that there are a couple of microbreweries here, and some brewpubs, and unlike the (most of) the rest of the state, for some reason we have county liquor and a quirk where exactly three grocery stores get to sell beer and wine. And now I've said almost everything there is to say about it, and there's nothing that doesn't fit in a paragraph on the county itself. Plenty of other counties in Maryland have the same (minus the liquor laws) and with new ones opening and closing all the time.

Using lighthouses as an example really doesn't cut it, because almost the only arguments about them are whether to use "light" versus "lighthouse" in the article name. The only notability questions about lighthouses I've ever seen revolved around structures which weren't erected as navigational aids, and I have seen very few even of those. And from a strictly procedural view, in the US at least nobody took the light lists and made stubs on every named aid therein, so that if an article was created, it had basic stats and a history. Likewise, other than the US master list we didn't make list of lighthouse articles until it was clear that there was some value to be gained in showing all the lights in a state in tabular form. If anything, the messages to be taken from comparing lighthouse articles to articles on "unincorporated communities" is that the people who did the former worked from a better notability guideline and used a better methodology than those who did the latter. It's hardly going to persuade me to use a project that abjured everything that is controversial about mass article creation in advocating the opposite; the message, as far as I am concerned, is that articles shouldn't be created until substantial material can be— and is— included. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmania has a smaller population than Maryland but its area is more than twice as great. As we have a similar List of breweries in Maryland, there's no case for deleting the Australian state while keeping the American one. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beer in Australia. No evidence this concept has a stand-alone notability, no in-depth discussion the concept of beer in this Australian province has been presented. The article is just a list of companies/brands from that province but as a list it fails WP:NLIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beer in Australia and List of breweries in Australia, which can cover the content well. Reywas92^Talk 18:25, 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. I am not persuaded by the keep votes. Winning awards confers notability when there is coverage of the award. For example, winning an Oscar generates coverage for the winner, winning the Palme d'Or generates coverage, etc etc. But if there is no coverage, there is no notability; in this case I don't see evidence of significant independent coverage about the actor/movie winning the award. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teerpu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep based on the fact that Kota Srinivasa Rao won an award for this film. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This unsourced article has existed over 6 years. It should not have lasted more than 6 days.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find anything to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per #3 of WP:NFO. The film received state-presented Nandi Award for Best Villain (p. 37). Please reconsider. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as delete. User asked for relist so consideration as to whether the award it won establishes notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. fails GNG. Pumpsdups (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Inclined to delete but can the 'keep' comment please be addressed in the context of the policy? Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NFO says "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." Nandi Awards presented by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is considered the highest award ceremony of Telugu cinema, therefore it meets the standard established by NFO. Pinging participants who may have missed, @Kailash29792, Donaldd23, Johnpacklambert, Kolma8, and Onel5969: -- Ab207 (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ab207, if you can find more sources in Telugu (type something like Teerpu 1994 or Teerpu ANR but in Telugu), I encourage you to add them. Would this be acceptable for songs? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kailash29792, since Teerpu means judgement, results are overrun by the articles of the landmark case of S. R. Bommai v. Union of India and 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgement. I'll try to add more sources that I can find. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - the film received zero awards. An actor in the film received the award. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The award is won for a role in this particular film. That's we have films winning an award in any category listed at List of Academy Award-winning films, not just the Best Picture. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Ab207: Thanks for bringing this interesting point. I am reading at Filmmaking: "Filmmaking involves a number of complex and discrete stages including an initial story, idea, or commission, through screenwriting, casting, shooting, sound recording and pre-production, editing, and screening the finished product before an audience that may result in a film release and an exhibition." MW says that filmmaking is "the making of motion pictures." I am not sure about this one yet I see your point too. It will be interesting to read opinions of others here. Kolma8 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Acting is an indispensable part of filmmaking. In Ben-hur's record of 11 Academy Award wins, no distinction is made between acting/non-acting categories. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I respectfully disagree. Acting is an activity, while filmmaking is a process, which in general includes development, pre-production, production, principal photography, wrap, post-production, and distribution. Kolma8 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actors, much like directors, cinematographers, composers, editors etc. take part in filmmaking. Each perform their pre-determined role like cog in a wheel to make a film. There are no awards for Best pre-production, Best principal photography etc, rather its the people who are awarded for their work in a film. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be, but while talking, for instance, about the most respected awards, the Oscars... "...the Oscars are awards for artistic and technical merit in the film industry," which is reflected in Academy_Awards#Current_categories. Again, would like to see how others will weight on the matter. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the film itself has not won any awards and has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources - does not meet WP:NFOE or WP:NFP - cheers, Epinoia (talk) 02:01, 31 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. I cannot pull a rationale out of this. In the end, the question is whether a junior world record is enough for notability; the discussion isn't really about GNG-style coverage, of which there seems to be little (and the final comment in the AfD is not substantial). Perhaps a new AfD, with fewer distractions (SportsOlympic, please tone it down some), can provide the answer here, with input from some of the members of the relevant project. On a side note, Christa Rothenburger is 61?? No wonder I feel old. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sylke Luding[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, only listings in databases. I couldn't verify the junior world records (she had 1 world junior championship record, which isn't the same thing). Fram (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the list of the world junior record progressions, and contrary to what the article claims, Sylke Luding never broke a junior world record[27][28]. Fram (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: see below: according to the source used in the article, she didn't break any world records: but research by User:Migrant shows that the problem was with that source, and not with the claim: Luding did set junior world records. Thanks! Fram (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, do a better informed research next time. Best regards Migrant (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing much. Subject does not pass the basic notability requirement prescribed in WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And again a AfD from the same nominator for one of the articles I created; with the same reasoning. I explained in former AfD you won’t find the good sources via Google. You have to look into the newspapers from that era (see for example AfD:Wendy van der Poel and to search into the sources of the country (see for example AfD Dalambayar Delgermaa). It’s a notable speed skater; set (junior) world records; represented Germany at international competitions; finished at the top of the highest division competition... For info about her, you have to look into the old German newspapers for the best sources. I don’t know where I can find them. However, when looking at Dutch newspapers (not findable via Google!); there are already a lot of sources about her at national newspapers. Many enough already to meet GNG: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and can add several more. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop repeating the false claim that she set any junior world records: you made the same claim in another article as well, and it was equally false. You cite some AfDs that ended in keep, but of course there were others that ended with deletion as well, so going by precedent or suggesting that all my speed skating AfDs are wrong won't help. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewa Borkowska (speed skater, born 1973) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grietje Veenstra. Then, your sources;
  - [29] Passing mention
  - [30] Passing mention, and wrong. The world record was not Luding's 40.87 from 1987, but 40.70 by Angela Stahnke in 1985[31]
  - [32] again a passing and wrong mention
  - [33] Passing mention
  - [34] Passing mention
  - [35] Passing and wrong mention
  - [36] Passing mention
  - [37] Passing and wrong mention
  - [38] Passing mention
  - [39] Passing mention
- Do you have any sources which have more on Sylke Luding than a result or a mention in one sentence? Anything substantial? Fram (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The world record is correct. You are showing a database source! Speed skating news is not reliable with records, you have to be very carefull with that!! (I thought you would be that) They only use their own data to make these lists. Many unofficial times are indicated as world / national records! All the sources I listed are not trivial mentions of the subject. And as per GNG “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. And these are the Dutch newspapers, more in dept articles will be in German newspapers and German sport magazines. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Skating is much more popular in the Netherlands than elsewhere; passing mentions in Dutch regional newspapers (for the most part) don't mean that better sources will exist in other countries. If speed skating news isn't reliable, then please stop using it. You add to every skater article you create a source " "Competition results, statistics and records; SpeedSkatingNews".", but are now complaining that I shouldn't use it for records? That's a bit rich. Fram (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I tend to side with Fram on this. It's like getting a passing mention as a dog musher in the Iditarod here in Alaska. I mean, that's the premier "sport" so if you get passing mentions then it's probably because you aren't known enough. Convince me otherwise. I don't speak Dutch but I do know and speak German. I don't see sigcov in any German newspapers for the subject based on my searches. Passing mentions can be used to support notability when there is sigcov in reliable sources. They can not be used as support for inclusion minus sigcov. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Tsistunagiska: articles about a (one example of her described) previous world record holder is not a passing mention, and how laters people desperately try to break it ;). where can I find the old German newspapers online!!!? Would love to have these sources :) SportsOlympic (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Fram: that’s the reason I don’t use the personal bests of speed skating news. And, learned of Migrant of the sources “Please don't rely on one source alone, be critical of each source, judge them by their specialty and focus and what's not their specialty or focus.” (see my talkpage) SportsOlympic (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - And if an newspaper article is for 50% about the subject; I don’t call it a passing mention... SportsOlympic (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Here is the issue I can see with newspapers and information not obtainable online. They may be reliable, they may be independent but they aren't readily verifiable. You can't quote a source as reliable if you can't access it. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the general population. How can the general population verify the sources in an article where there is claimed notability if we can't access the sources? Unlike Twitter, we don't assume just because it is on Wikipedia it is notable. If that was the case we wouldn't need the AfD process. We demand to be able to verify the sources on a notable subject and any subject that claims notability but doesn't have verifiable sources should be treated with skepticism. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is perfectly an example of GNG “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”
  - [40] Dutch National newspaper - One section of the article about her
  - [41] main newspaper of Bonaire - Years later referred to her performance of setting the world record.
  - [42] Dutch national newspaper - Years later referred to her performance of setting the world record. About a skater who thought too much about her performance and so performed not that good herself.
  - [43] Dutch national newspaper - Mention about her injury
  - [44] Dutch national newspaper - mention in article an described who her family members are
  - [45] Years later referred to her performance of setting the world record.
  - [46] mentioned about her mental coach, her talentfull results and her father
  - [47] Dutch national news paper - section about setting world records (1 of the 3 sections of the article)
  - [48] Dutch national news paper - section about setting world records (1 of the 2 sections of the article)
  - [49] Dutch national newspaper - an article describing the world records, including her world record.
  - SportsOlympic (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tsistunagiska and again, can you please give the links of the online German old newspapers you found? SportsOlympic (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportsOlympic Please indicate where you got the quoted phrase above from. It is not quoted under WP:GNG. No where in our notability guideline does it say that multiple insignificant coverages can be put together to equal a significant coverage. That's ridiculous. Also, if I had found anything noteworthy I would have offered it to save the article from deletion. I will not post links to trivial information tat can be searched for by anyone here. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to look at WP:NOT and pay special attention to the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the first point at basic criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just above that you will see it says "People are presumed notable". This indicates to me that this allows for the creation of articles on that presumption. This presumption does not guarantee that a subject should be included. The AfD process is here to determine such things. If the notability of a subject is rebutted upon scrutiny of the sources, both included in the article and when conducting a WP:BEFORE search, then the article should be deleted from the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To come back of your sentence when I asked you about the newspapers: "I will not post links to trivial information tat can be searched for by anyone here". Well delpher.nl is accessible for everybody, but you wont find the articles via google. At least you didn't see these articles when doing your WP:BEFORE, as it is hard to find on the internet the pre-internet secondary sources. That is the case with most of the old newspaper databases. Via Google you won't the newspaper articles of that era, so you have to know the link. If you have a link, please let me know, but it turns out you didn't look into the old German newspapers. Secondly you state "No where in our notability guideline does it say that multiple insignificant coverages can be put together to equal a significant coverage. That's ridiculous." Well I showed you it, and this person meets it. And yes, of course, there should always be a discussion. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska:, to come back of your sentence "I would encourage you to look at WP:NOT and pay special attention to the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." --> Germany was in that era the best speed skating nation (the women's). Sylke Luding had 3 times a seventh place at a World Cup (see here, here and here, the competition with the best speed skaters worldwide. Of the six riders above here, three were riders from her own nation. So only three riders from other countries could beat her. And (almost) all riders who competed at those World Cup are notable. (These years (1986, 1987 and 1988) the nation had always 3 to 4 riders in the top-6 at the World Championships). So this is not just a speed skater, she was one of the best of the world. The few riders that were better were only from her own country. But stating the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is not the case here. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are yet again the same sources, and what you call "a section about her" is actually in each case one sentence. Fram (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are books that consist of one sentence. And besides of that, please count, is it not true. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – @Fram, Tsistunagiska, and SportsOlympic: If you want to find official world speed skating records why not use the source itself that officially declares them, the international sports governing body that is International Skating Union own list of world records (World Records and for Junior World Records). And for this specific case the debated three Junior world speed skating records (500m Ladies Junior World Record Progression, 2 times and Sprint Combination Ladies Junior World Record Progression, 1 time). And the current rules of speed skating regarding official world records are stated in this ISU-document International Skating Union Special Regulations & Technical Rules Speed Skating 2018 and look up the section about world records on pages 32–34. Best regards Migrant (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I don't think this changes anything about her actual notability, but it does clear up the discrepancy between the article and the sources used in it. Fram (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Fram: well it it very important regarding your previous sentences regarding to a BLP. One of your main activities is rectifying violatins of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, so you know very well what consequences it can have for someone when false statements are made. When doing it yourself (when stating this to me, you act like nothing happened. You would do well to rectify it. And secondly, it is important, as setting world records contributes to being notable, as it is seen as something significant with a lot of media attention (at that time and in the years after). SportsOlympic (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportsOlympic Continuing to regurgitate the same thing over and over again doesn't bring anything new to the table. Nothing has been presented to this AfD to change the status of whether the subject receives significant coverage in multiple reliable and intellectually independent sources. That's not my opinion. That's facts according to the only criteria that is relevant on Wikipedia to measure actual notability, not presumed notability which seems to get people hung up on SNG's and such. A world record can be used as criteria to presume notability but presumed notability can be rebutted when measured against the evidence or lack there of. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 12:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was in almost all main national Dutch newspapers (more than mentioned above), when not even looking at German newspapers. So it’s an important contribution. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not necessarily equal importance. We have important subjects that do not pass notability requirements and we have relatively insignificant subjects that happen to pass the notability guideline easily. All of those sources gave the subject passing mentions and do not constitute in-depth significant coverage and passing mentions are not stackable according to the guideline. Again, I don't blame you for fighting for something you like and want included. It still must pass the basic notability requirements. This one does not. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it’s about coverage. And she had a coverage in all major Dutch newspapers regarding to the world records. SportsOlympic (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the German secondary sources of that era are not online. See here. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2, postcards with here signature are on sale for 7.49 Euro (see here). You wouldn't expect such a card to exist for a not-notable person, and besides of that not for that price. All the the other cards that are on sale are of notable speed skaters (see here). SportsOlympic (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing notability with importance again. No doubt, this individual was an important figure in her sport and among the local and regional people and time in which she lived. But importance doesn't immediately equate to notability. To add, it isn't about the amount of coverage as much as it is about the depth of coverage in reliable sources and that the sources are readily available for public access to verify the claims of notability. You could have thousands of mentions and passing comments about a person and, according to WP:N, that person is still not notable. The criteria calls for significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Something I have come to realize over my brief but difficult time here at Wikipedia is that having or not having an article on my favorite subjects, favorite people or the topics I find important DOES NOT diminish its import to myself or those who share the same viewpoints. That is a huge weight lifted off me. Nothing will be able to take away what she did or who she was. She just doesn't warrant an article on this encyclopedia based on the current criteria we are instructed to follow. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 13:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

First, the sources I showed are not passing comments. Second, it are just comments, indicating her importance and showing it’s highly likely there have been a lot of coverage of her in German media. But as I showed, the German media of that time is not online. Third, as you’re saying “She just doesn't warrant an article on this encyclopedia based on the current criteria we are instructed to follow.” —> that’s your opinion, not yet a conclusion out of this discussion. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Going to struggle to reach a consensus with the same couple of people doing all the talking. Can this be advertised somewhere so that interested parties can throw in their $0.02?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons for not participating that often at international championships was probably because of her stiff competition in her own skating club from: Karin Kania (olympic champion), Andrea Ehrig (olympic champion), Christa Rothenburger (olympic champion), Skadi Walter (olympic top-5), Carola Bürger, Andrea Schulze and Heike Pöhland, and from other real good East German speed skaters at the time of her career, although she got in the mix sometimes and for that I really believe she is a notable speed skater. Best regards Migrant (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- She is notable for not even being the best at her own club? That's strange reasoning. Whether she competed in a very strong club (as here), or in some village club where she had no competition, has no bearing on her notability at all. In fact, in general it is easier and thus less remarkable to become a good sporter if you have strong training mates, than if you have to do it all by yourself. Fram (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The point being made is that Germany was the best country in the world; and she was one of the best speed skaters worldwide. And of course she will have had coverage in the German media, speed skating was in that era a very popular sport. But we can’t prove that because the news sources are not on internet (as I proved). And she had already a lot of coverage in foreign media. SportsOlympic (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are enough for notability. Moonraker (talk) 04:18, 31 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 Earwig ^talk 01:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Leap Forward (band)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone noticed me on my talk page about this band, that's the first time I have heard about them. He asked me about the exact name of this band, and asked me about their notability. I answered that they don't seem notable and an Afd should be started, which wasn't started, so I started it, here we go. Article about an unnotable band which was created by the band themselves. Only aspects of notability might be the fact that the founder was a part of a previous notable band (Big Flame), and they have released albums on a label which seems notable (although, to be fair, I have never heard about this band, Big Flame or the record label before, but that's just me). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was in two minds about whether this one was notable or not and noticed it was being heavily edited by TGLForward so left it for a while to see if they were going to add sources to show notability but then I admit that I just completely forgot to check. After searching myself and reviewing the newly added sources, I still feel that this does not meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. They do not appear to have charted at any significant level nor gained sufficient media coverage nor won or been nominated for any significant awards. Spiderone 11:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - happy to be proved wrong here; easily meets WP:GNG with the coverage from an array of sources, which were the biggest music sources at the time Spiderone 22:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - The predecessor band Big Flame got a little notice, but this project (except for one gig announcement already cited) is only visible in the usual streaming/retail sites and its own self-created sites. The name of the article's main editor raises suspicions of an attempted promotion too. Also, this project did itself no favors by using two names during its existence, both with and without "The". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my newer comment below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at the very least merge to a section in Big Flame (band). Although there isn't much online, I'm confident that print coverage exists from the 1980s. --Michig (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC) I've found two NME issues that have articles on the band - I don't have these (yet) but these are examples of coverage that exists. --Michig (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am the guy who has been updating the page for " The Great Leap Forward (band)" - rationale being that the information is out of date and / or is missing, as this band has been active since previous article edits.

The article "Great Leap Forward (band)" (which I didn't start) has been up on Wiki since 2008ish, with no problems, queries, or referrals from yourselves. "Great Leap Forward (band)" and "The Great Leap Forward (band)" are one and the same. As part of an information update, and in my ignorance of your procedures, I tried to rectify this original name error by creating a new page and redirecting, which I see that you then kindly did anyway - apologies for any self-caused problems there.

I have since uploaded new information (for both this article and related others), and I appreciate that your criteria kicks in in order to monitor this. However, I am now clearly worried that you are about to delete the article when all I wanted to do was to bring it up to date, and as mentioned above, the article has been in existence since 2008 without being deemed "un-notable", so what is so different now that you are considering deleting it?

And may I humbly point out that if you do delete, then there many many other bands on Wiki who also fall into your "no evidence of notability" category, but still have articles.

Regarding evidence/references: I note Spiderone "couldn't find anything reliable, just the standard junk..". Not really sure what "standard junk" means, and wondering how how much you use that phrase to determine whether a band is notable or not. Also I suppose it depends on your in-depth knowledge of the British independent music scene, mostly in the 1980's I admit, which, going on GhostDestroyer100's age, I can appreciate may not be his priority.

So what I can do is provide you with references from reviews and interviews over time about this band from British and European music media such as NME, Sounds etc., and as this band has a new album out later this year then I expect there to be further references available.

In summary, I only wished to update an article that has been living quite happily on Wiki for over 12 years. If I went about this is in the wrong manner, then I can only apologise. Please advise what steps I need to take to avoid this page being deleted.

Thanks for your consideration --TGLForward (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)TGLForward[reply]

@TGLForward: I have answered you on my talk page. Regards, GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that Manic Street Preachers see The Great Leap Forward (and the linked band Big Flame) as notable - here is an article where they name their favourite bands:

File:I have uploaded this NME interview as an example.

WhiteRose88 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)WhiteRose88[reply]

Hello again

I have taken your advice and changed my user name from TGLForward to WhiteRose88.

Ghostdestroyer100 requested more references for this band, which Michig seems to have found some. Here are some more from pre-internet days, with photographic evidence of all available should you require:

New Musical Express (NME:

12.12.87 gig review (David Swift)
gig review date tbc (Stephen Dalton)
02.01.88 - “1988 –Fast Forward” – NME list of up and coming bands for 1988
23.01.88 - band interview (DAvid Swift)
07.05.88 – gig review (with That Petrol Emotion)
02.07.88 - Single EP review (James Brown)
15.04.89 - Album review (Simon Williams)
29.04.89 - band interview (Stuart Maconie)
May 1989 - LP Chart/Turn Ons / Select (NME guide to the month’s essential albums and charts position)

Melody Maker:

15.07.89 - gig review (Paul Lester)
17.04.89 - Hacienda gig review (Ian Gittins)
08.04.89 - album review (Everett True)
13.05.89 - band interview (Ian Gittins)

Sounds:

01.04.89 - Album review (John Robb)
13.05.89 - gig review (Keith Cameron)
29.05.89 - band interview (John Robb)

Other:

The Guardian “Hit List” top ten albums 21.04.89
Offbeat magazine album review 08.05.89 (Jerry McGuinness) / in “Vital Vinyl” list of “essential albums” / band interview (Mike Noon)
Manchester City Life: band interview/album review
Manchester Evening News: band interview
Up Town (Manchester): band interview / album review
Cut magazine album review 04.05.89
Record Mirror live review 19.12.87

Here are some further links – I know not all hit your criteria for notability, but just showing you that this band has some history and continuity over the years even though you may not have heard of it:

Thanks for your consideration ex TGLForward WhiteRose88 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)WhiteRose88[reply]

@WhiteRose88: Hi! Thanks for the new sources and the name change! These look great, especially the major magazine coverages. The other sources look fine too, except the blogspot ones and lastfm, which are not reliable (though they are good for the "external links" section). By the way, write at the bottom of the page, that's where new messages should be! (Sorry for not mentioning that earlier.) I will still wait for new opinions, though. Thanks for the sources, again! Regards, GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WhiteRose88: I posted your comment and the sources at the bottom of the page. Don't worry, I did not delete it or anything. Just scroll down and you will see it. Regards, GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I voted above to delete due to weak sources, but my search seems to have been complicated by the fact that the band's name is the same as a historical event. The sources proposed here by TGLForward are mostly useful, though some are more about the band's leader than the band itself. In any case, if that person is willing to enhance the article then it should be keep-able. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as significant coverage in multiple reliable sources has been identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all
Just to clarify Doomsdayer's comment that the interview sources focus on the band's leader rather than the band itself - this is because this is effectively a one-man band: the main man writes and records all the songs and instruments himself. Other musicians are drafted in to enable the 'band' to play live.
If you guys do choose to keep, having learnt a valuable lesson by going through this deletion process I will certainly ensure that the article is enhanced by referencing only notable/reliable sources, and then either removing non-reliable sources or moving some of them to the "external links" section as GhostDestroyer100 suggests.
Thanks again for your consideration. WhiteRose88 (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)WhiteRose88[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs some more analysis of the sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
5 users have contributed to this deletion discussion - 3 initially wanted to delete and 2 to keep.
However, since I provided a list of sources, those 3 wanting to delete have - as I understand it - now deemed those sources as notable and have changed their opinion to keep, so that all 5 users now say keep.

I now see that this discussion has been "relisted", and that "some more analysis of the sources presented" is needed.
To that end, please find some more of these pre-internet press articles uploaded below.
When you analyse them, you'll find that they have the name of the magazine and date of article included in the imagery (although some of the smaller snippets may not).
Hope this helps
Thanks WhiteRose88 (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)White Rose88[reply]

OK I am now in some sort of catch 22 situation here!
I'm trying my best to get all this right so that you guys can come to a decision.
Yesterday I uploaded imagery of the sources for more analysis as outlined above when this discussion was put in re-list. This morning I find that the imagery has been removed by user:herbythyme as that violates Wiki Commons policy.

So I could really do with some help: how can I provide pre-internet source evidence (which I have as jpgs) to you without that evidence being removed due to policy violation?
Thanks --WhiteRose88 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)WhiteRose88 (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)WhiteRose88[reply]

Comment. I've expanded the article and cited some of the available coverage. WP:GNG is clearly satisfied, and I don't think there's any need for this dicussion to carry on any longer since consensus to keep is already clear. --Michig (talk) 19:32, 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 no consensus. Looks like the discussion has run out of steam. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thrybergh 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 dead links and do not appear to be IS. BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV // Timothy :: talk 17:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Timothy, you are using that erroneous template again. I have answered all the points in the template on a nother page. We need to compare each one against the actual policy not our own preferences. Questions, did you read the article and discover the 10 RS references already given? Did you follow up the URN and Ofsted link in the infobox? Did you run a check on schools week or the TES (registring is free)? Did you run a google check on special measures? Did you read the two rotherham advertiser recent articles? ClemRutter (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Here are your 12 sources

This is a dead link, appears to be a database report, fails V, almost certainly SIGCOV: John Doxey. "THRYBERGH COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL". Retrieved 4 May 2017.
This is a dead link from the school, not IS: "About the School: Thrybergh Academy & Sports College". Vle.thryberghssc.org. Retrieved 4 May 2017.
This is a government funding agreement, not IS, not SIGCOV: "Freedom of Information Request funding/140254_Thrybergh Academy Sports College_Rotherham" (PDF). cscpprod.blob.core.windows.net/. 2012. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
About a minor investigation into school spending that "appears excessive", not SIGCOV: "'Limit lunch portions to save money', say Agnew's advisers". Schools Week. 28 March * 2019. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2003 Report
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2005 Report
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2006 Report
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2009 Report
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2013 Report
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2017 Report
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2019 Report
A routine inspection report, not IS, not SIGCOV: 2020 Corvid Report

ClemRutter, tell everyone which of the above is an INDEPENDENT RELIABLE SOURCE with SIGCOV showing notability since you listed the "10 RS references already given? Did you follow up the URN and Ofsted link in the infobox?" in your post?

The problem here is clearly you do not understand what a independent reliable source is or what significant coverage means. Other than these there is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage, the kind any school would receive, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject Directly and Indepth. // Timothy :: talk 01:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue: Hi, firstly getting personal, do get in touch if you are in the London area so we can share a drink, and I can show you around a bit. We do have a London Virtual Meetup 163 if you want to get virtual.

But your analysis of the sources is way off beam. Firstly if you read an Ofsted Report you will discover just how full and rich they are, suggesting they are 'routine' is far from the truth. I see you have spent a lot of time documenting former CCCP institutiions- the UK does not work like that. I try not to edit US schools articles as frankly I don't understand the system--how do US schools operate without an independent assessment system?

In UK schools the interest is finance, governance, teaching philosophy, outcomes, the buildings, the communities served. We have one routine government source known as GIAS- we link to that through the URN in the infobox. There you will find the links to previous schools, and a link to all available independent ofsted reports. That is your starting point. WP:I is clear that GIAS as government report is good, and it does fulfil W:SIGCOV as it addresses the topic directly (there is no mention of quantity of information needed) I didn't even mention that one. If you start examining the Ofsted reports, you will find several types- section 5s are critical to the schools, section 8s often lead to section 5s but for our point of view they both are excellent sources. They both give a technical description of the school and its intake and current enrollment. In the body of the report is a critical description of various aspects of management, teaching, safeguarding etc, with examples that can be useful to us, but IMHO not as useful for stubs and starts . We have the bonus that later ones have a OGL license which is CC-BY-SA 3.0.

There are a mass of school articles that need to be destubbed Category:North American school stubs for example, I think we do have a bigger problem with internationalisation, and the large number of Indian schools that are intuatively important but are located in areas with poor English language coverage. That's for another day. ClemRutter (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG, per source analysis above. (t · c) buidhe 11:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of the sources, greater discussion addressing the points raised above, and the involvement of additional editors would all be helpful in establishing clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Available sources sufficient to establish notability, as with any other British secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 13 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 01:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a close rerun of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putteridge High School ClemRutter (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, but I did mention it. If you decide to do a deletion review to reopen it, wait until after the noticeboard thread closes. // Timothy :: t | c | a 12:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The conversation at RS/N is (slowly) developing a consensus that reports are reliable but do not confer notability. That conversation and this deletion discussion need to develop slightly more for that consensus to be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is well sourced and notable. Bleaney (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Thrybergh - In my view, Ofsted reports don't move the notability needle, as I explained at RSN. The remaining sources don't seem adequate, either: refs 1, 2, and 3 fail the GNG criteria (as explained by TimothyBlue), and number 4 refers to the school just once in a lengthy article about a broader topic. Putting that all together, we have one trivial and tangential reference and nothing else. That fails WP:GNG, as far as I'm concerned. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have expanded this article with independent references that I believe help further support notability. Bleaney (talk) 10:46, 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 merge to Brookes Shawnigan Lake. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell International School[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, WP:NHS - No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Serv181920 (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one local report on how a school is about to close is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after paring down into History section of Brookes Shawnigan Lake. Orville^talk 06:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep notable, one of the major Baha'i schools in Canada with well-documented history, Google gives you 1,570 results on "maxwell international school" Bahai Tarikhejtemai (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not sufficient. Check WP:GNUM Serv181920 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep - It is also covered in A Basic Baha'i Chronology by Glenn Cameron [50], though not in much detail. There is a 4-page article in Baha'i News November 1988 [51]. As for references outside of Baha'i sources, there are numerous articles covering it by independent newspapers. It has gone by "Maxwell International Baha'i School", "Maxwell Baha'i School", and "Maxwell International School". Searcing the right terms, I quickly came up with articles where the school and its students are the main subject, not trivial mentions: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], and there are many more. In 1998 it was independently ranked 61 out of 256 high schools in British Columbia [61]. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not able to verify the sources as they are behind the paywall. Cuñado and Tarikhejtemai are Baha'i editors, may be that's the reason they want to keep it. I could not find anything significant about this school except in the Baha'i published sources.Serv181920 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Paywall: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." Also, you are a single-issue anti-Baha'i editor, if we're talking about biases. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge only sourced content into Brookes Shawnigan Lake oer Orville. // Timothy :: t | c | a 15:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think merge is appropriate. Are there any guidelines or precedents for schools that have closed? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has no sources and seems to be against WP:NRSNVNA and WP:NOR Illuminator123 (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I listed 12 sources above. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have referred to 12 mentions in newspaper articles. Just because a school has been mentioned in a newspaper it doesn't make it notable. In fact newspapers frequently publish articles on local schools and their activities and achievements. Notability aside the whole article has no sources and WP:NRSNVNA and WP:NOR Illuminator123 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those apply. WP:ORG does apply, and says: "the organization has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization". It attracted the attention of many newspapers and several Baha'i publications. If you're so passionate about notability guidelines, go put an AFD on Homer High School (Louisiana). Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is building towards Merge but could do with further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Orville and Timothy - seeing as the school has been closed for a while it makes sense to integrate sourced content into a "History" section of the school that currently occupies the same grounds. Mention could also be added to an article on the Bahá'í Faith in Canada, since it would be relevant to such an article. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 09:14, 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 delete. Consensus is to delete. Final comment wasn't followed up on, and at any rate the results from the Google Scholar search are less impressive in reality than in that list of search results. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Campbell Collegiate Institute[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, WP:NHS - No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Serv181920 (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NHS. Notability is not a problem with several sources verifying its existence. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"verifying its existence" does that mean notability!?Serv181920 (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NHS. I'm not going to quote it to you. Actually read the lead. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuñado and Serv181920: WP:NHS an old essay that was superseded by WP:NSCHOOL. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously it does more than verify its existence.Smkolins (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability requires significant coverage by reliable sources. Trivial mentions are not enough. Check WP:TRIVIALMENTION Serv181920 (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "trivial" is different than "singular". If a source says, for example, a program was from x, mentions it once, the program still represents a major reference and it is improper to call it "trivial". Smkolins (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you believe "one" news item as a "significant" coverage?Serv181920 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are misusing the framework of articles about schools marking them to be deleted rather than to actually spend the effort seeking sources as is plainly stated in the lead of WP:NHS. Don't try to obfuscate what I mean when I say "one" when it is not "trivial".Smkolins (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite. You have just given one source at the talk page and you think it is significant covrage?Serv181920 (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Verification of existence alone is insufficient for keeping the article per WP:NSCHOOL (cf. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Any explicit links to independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the school would be very helpful here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I was going by WP:NHS because it was in the nomination. I found one non-trivial mention of the school: [62], covering a performance of the students. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MarkH21, Thank you for the info. I don't know how one mention (not verified, it is behind paywall) makes the school notable. It is a Baha'i school thus I assume both the Baha'i editors (Cuñado & Smkolins) want to keep it.Serv181920 (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serv181920 you forgot to mention your role as a single-issue account that does nothing but promote negative views of the Baha'i Faith for the last six months. But since that doesn't affect the notability of an article I can see why you didn't mention it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuñado, What negative views? There are POV issues with many Baha'i articles and you have yourself admitted that, I am just trying to touch those issues and I am using the same sources that you have been using since years! For now let's discuss the notability of this particular subject. If it's notable it should stay.Serv181920 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, let's focus on building an encyclopedia and not on the intentions of editors. Good idea. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entire article depends on two sources. Both sources are dead links. Might even fall under a G8 speedy deletion WP:SPEEDY Illuminator123 (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not persuaded by any of the current 'keep' arguments but there is currently no consensus to do anything.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT) or NBUILD. Both sources in article are dead, one does not appear to be about the school, probably a mention, the other is from the school. BEFORE showed nothing. Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. Article does not meet NBUILD, "…they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage, the type all schools receive in local press. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 20:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems like there's been a fair bit of academic study involving the school and/or citing its methods. @TimothyBlue:/@MarkH21: would this content help towards meeting WP:ORG? dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:35, 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 delete. Sandstein 22:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hariharan Pillai Happy Aanu[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) 15:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films. Major theatrical release and also the cast contains major stars in malayalam films. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How does it pass WP:NFILM and WP:GNG? I think if can't answer that questions we can't keep it... Kolma8 (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reference is what defines failing WP:GNG no indication it can pass WP:NFILM the other language page does not add support either. Jeepday (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 15:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Northern Escapee (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Gonzaga Mendez Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Was awarded the second-highest award once and was awarded a very common award three times. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his awards do not actually rise to the level of meeting our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC) which is the United States Army's second highest military decoration, after the Medal of Honor, for soldiers who display extraordinary heroism in combat with an armed enemy force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine 69-71 (talk • contribs)
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. One award of the Distinguished Service Cross (United States) doesn't satisfy #1 of WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It totally wrong that a soldier must be awarded more then one Distinguished Service Cross (United States) to be notable. The soldier was a hero and that makes him notable. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is related discussion about this nomination here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71#Nomination_of_Jorge_Otero_Barreto_for_deletion Mercy11 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, which in this case you specifically named in my "talk" page "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: G'day, some of this coverage might be relevant for assessing against the WP:GNG: [63] (Washington Post), [64] (Washington Post), [65] (Arlington Cemetery), [66] (Fairfax County Public Schools), [67] (Fairfax Times), [68] (a few Google Books mentions). I vaguely remember him being mentioned in Ryan's A Bridge Too Far but unfortunately I don't have my copy to check anymore. Can anyone else confirm or deny? I am a little concerned that the article might closely paraphrase one of these sources (Pearson), though, so it would probably need attribution in the article with quotes etc if kept. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant content from a related discussion page.

The relevant information below comes from the WP page here

I view this and the above AfD's as a sudden agenda of personal attacks on the articles which are about "Hispanic" war heroes. This never happened before and what is cited as a reason for the nominations is an essay not policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have created a number of pages about people who do not satisfy WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG and therefore are not notable. Being the first Puerto Rican/Hispanic to do X does not establish notability. That's why these pages are being put up for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Really? So it is about the pages that I created and not what others have created? Let me tell you the person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, in this case you specifically name "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. I ask myself, what is the use of continuing in this project when after so many years the articles which have been created with hard work following the guidelines come under attack and are nominated for deletion? Tony the Marine (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with Tony. Unless this is an approved decision to remove every 'minor' American hero regardless of background from the encyclopedia then it should not begin with minority Americans. They are underrepresented in American history as it is. Let them be the last to be removed if at all.Dmercado (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography. While WP:SOLDIER is just an Essay it sets out presumptions as to military notability, which if the person has SIGCOV in multiple RS means that they deserve a page. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. GNG applies to everyone regardless of nationality and User:Marine 69-71 as an Admin should know that. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its a consensus, you are welcome to try to argue it at AFD or elsewhere.Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Letter and User:Mztourist seem to be supporting each other's delete nominations: one nominating the article for delete and the other user quickly agreeing to its deletion. I'll explain, (from what I've spotchecked) when User:Letter nominates the soldier article for deletion, Mztourist agrees on delete and vice versa. To nomination closer: If anything, remember that the delete is not a "count" vote. The two users agreeing on all deletion of specific soldier article nominations seems strange to me. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I have been accused of "canvassing" when it seems as if the two users mentioned have teamed up to eliminate articles about our heroes only because according to an essay they were not notable for being awarded one of the second highest military decoration of the United States. Instead it should be taken into account that the heroic actions that they made would in another case merit the Medal of Honor. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A nomination using the WP:NSOLDIER essay as a delete criteria? Since when do we make delete decisions based on an WP:SPS as non-notable as a WP essay? What is a WP essay if it isn't a piece of writing expressing an editor's personal POV with no oversight by a notable editorial board of SMEs nor peer-reviewed by experts qualified in the branch on knowledge in question? I frown upon arguments made based on WP essays as if they were anything more than someone's desperate attempt to make his/her views known at WP after failing to get his/her ideas approved by the community at large and after failing to get those ideas into one of WP's [{WP:PG]]. Mercy11 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should familiarize yourself with the criteria used in assessing Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: rather than insulting editors' intelligence or reading ability, you should have already stepped aside and allow the nomination to run its course rather than jumping in everytime an editor makes a comment you don't like. Mercy11 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mercy11 those who developed and apply WP:SOLDIER were insulted and you decided to paste an irrelevant Talk Page discussion on multiple pages. Mztourist (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oh, come on. This is a very well-written and well-sourced article about a decorated veteran who has a town square named after him. Clearly, he did something with his life, even if he's been dead for twenty years; have we really got nothing better to do with ours than argue about this? jp×g 10:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus exists currently, but there's some outstanding (ie. non-resolved) discussion points above that could do with some more air if the participants so desire.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stop using consensus-lacking essays as deletion criteria. This needs an RfC. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - going by the nominator's own criteria, the Essay on WP:SOLDIER, a soldier is notable if they "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign; ..." which this soldier did - this soldier was involved in a counterattack of the notable Battle of the Bulge and he also led his soldier's on another notable battle, Operation Market Garden. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- seems significant enough to me Durindaljb (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't a well-sourced or well-written article, contrary to claims above. The article isn't even clear about the rank Mendez held when he won his DSC or the Bronze Stars. In fact, it seems more like a slight rework of the arlingtoncemetery.net post on him, which in turn claims to be from "a contemporary press report"...which remains unsourced. Intothat darkness 20:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2001/09/23/army-col-louis-mendez-jr/2c1924de-e8fb-4a25-b92c-4bf1f0f48b4d/ is significant coverage in a reliable source about him. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/highschool/2018/04/27/confederate-general-makes-last-stand-high-school-teams/545015002/ calls him a war hero, and mentions him fighting "for justice and equality" in the educational system. Dream Focus 23:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The linked sources are all essentially the same article repackaged. I would support a keep if this article were reworked to focus more on his verifiable work with the education system (including sources that didn't read almost exactly the same). Intothat darkness 02:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Elizabeth Whitton[edit]

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

Unfortunately, as she seems to have been a fascinating woman, there's little indication of notability here. My searches didn't find coverage to meet GNG at proquest, newspapers.com, google, gbooks, archive.org, and the Syracuse University library catalogue. I'd love to be proven wrong, however. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my earlier reply to Eddie. Like Eddie, open to changing !vote if other sources emerge. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a source to the article that includes support for notability and a list of books and memoirs about the WRENS. Beccaynr (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you claiming as the basis of her notability? WRENS are a notable group, just being part of a notable group doesn't confer individual notability. Mztourist (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to the list of references in the source I added to the article, per WP:NEXIST, it now appears that there is a specific "possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Beccaynr (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained what you believe makes her notable, nor provided SIGCOV in RS to establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:SOLDIER and the addition of the source quoting the Chief of Naval Staff, it appears that Whitton "played an important role in a significant military event such as a major ... campaign" and "there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about [Whitton]'s birth, personal life, education and military career," so a stand-alone article appears warranted. The newly-added source also includes a list of additional sources that could help address the requests raised above for more references. Beccaynr (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What "important role" in what "significant military event"? Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source: 'We were sworn to secrecy': Canadian women share stories of their efforts to help win WWII (CBC News), includes discussion of "taking bearings on German submarines and intercepting their coded messages to Nazi Germany, the women sat for hours, earphones on, listening. [...] The Wrens at Coverdale and units like it across the Allied world became known as 'the listeners.'" Based on the information already included in the article, this sounds like Whitton's role, i.e. an important role in a major military campaign. There also seems to be notability in how Queen Elizabeth specifically called on Canadian women to help with the war effort (CBC Digital Archives), but Whitton's role specifically appears to have additional notability as a "coder" in The Battle of the Atlantic (Government of Canada), e.g. "1943 marked the start of a year-long period in which the Canadian Navy was second to none in finding and sinking submarines." Based on the availability of independent and reliable sources, it looks like a more encyclopedic article could be developed for Whitton, if additional information can be sourced to describe what she did during her service. Beccaynr (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they did their job, just like everyone else, but there is nothing that shows that Whitton herself "played an important role in a significant military event" i.e. the Battle of the Atlantic. Otherwise everyone at Bletchley Park was notable, everyone in the Royal Navy was notable, etc. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Added two more reference sources profiling her, I'm doing some research this week to find more. John Cummings (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of secondary source coverage. Primary source interviews do not count for notability and while the WRENS in general were notable, Whitton herself is not individually notable enough for an article. Kges1901 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR. The nomination starts with "Unfortunately, as she seems to have been a fascinating woman..." I agree, and I think we should bend our interpretation of the rules in favor of keeping articles on fascinating women (and people in general, but women are often under-reported in history) who are well-documented enough for us to be well-assured that the accounts are likely to be accurate. BD2412 T 03:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added two more sources: one that references codebreakers at Bletchley Park as "arguably the first role for women in tech" (Guardian) and another that discusses the accomplishments of codebreaking WRENS at Bletchley Park (Smithsonian Magazine). I also saw various links in my research that seemed like they offer service records, which might help focus more specifically on Whitton's role. One of the challenges is the classification of the military information until recently; but there already appears to be independent biographical coverage of Whitton in the article, and there is some information about what she was doing during her military service. Based on what has been found so far, there appears to be coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources about her military service. Beccaynr (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD and the bang-up job that has been done with this article since nomination. It's not like this is a worthless perma-stub with a birth date and death date; it's a well-written and adequately sourced article that you can actually learn something useful from. On what basis should that be thrown to the flames? jp×g 11:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the users who have !voted ‘keep’ since BD2412 seem to be basing their votes essentially on them feeling something is fascinating, which is incredibly concerning to me. If we start keeping articles based upon feelings and not our notability guidelines, where do we stop? While I sympathize with concerns over systematic bias, the way to remedy that is by creating and improving articles on notable topics, of which there are many— not by keeping articles where there simply isn’t coverage to establish notability. The amount of information we can verify is immense, the amount of people for which we can write sourced bios for is pretty high and you can probably find something fascinating about tens of millions of people. yet we don’t have articles on all of them because our notability standards are what make Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion of the point of notability is that it's a test to see if it's possible to write an article that complies with core content policies. GNG is one such test, but by no means the only such test (SNGs etc), and WP:N is just a guideline. It appears to me that here we have an article where it's possible to write a neutral article with verifiable information and no original research. Anything more, well, WP:NOTPAPER applies imv: Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. This appears, to me, to be encyclopaedic content which meets the Wikipedia:Five pillars. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader: the problem is that this is not the case. Of the ten sources in the article, five don't mention Whitton and are just about the WRENS in general, three are non-bylined obituaries are (two of which are the same obituary in The Globe and Mail. For context, an obituary like this is not indicative of notability, is a poor source by itself and was probably submitted by the family), and the remaining two are primary sources, yet again poor for establishing verifiable information and certainly not indicative of notability.
The WRENS have been extensively documented ([69], [70], [71], [72],[73], [74], [75], [76]), yet not a single one of those books I just linked you even mentions Shelia Witton. 74,000 women served in the WRNS and over 6,000 in the WRCNS. Are you arguing we should have an article on every single women regardless of whether notability has been demonstrated? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At risk of being called a contrarian (and purely as a matter of personal opinion) I'd say that if someone sat down and banged out several thousand well-written, verifiable articles about people who weren't terribly important to the grander scheme of history, and none of these articles are in any way promotional/attack pages/POV pushing, and all of them constituted a more or less complete summary of what they did in the world, that would be good. I mean, it'd be educational, which is good, and there would be nothing bad about it I can think of (aside from there being another page for people to go on and change the short description to "shit fart", but they can also do that on Napoleon Bonaparte). I think the main reason to oppose such a thing is that, well, most articles that end up being AfD'd for GNG fails are innovative disruptive entrepreneurs, brilliant self-help gurus, award-winning local radio hosts, etc. where you have no hope of the information being helpful or accurate. If you want to say the actual policy itself is against me, well, it is, so that's fair. jp×g 15:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has changed a fair bit, but this dialogue has only just started. A consensus may be able to be formed either way with another 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ditto on what he said - I'd say that if someone sat down and banged out several thousand well-written, verifiable articles about people who weren't terribly important to the grander scheme of history, and none of these articles are in any way promotional/attack pages/POV pushing, and all of them constituted a more or less complete summary of what they did in the world, that would be good. I mean, it'd be educational, which is good - which points out that the entire body of 74,000 women code breakers at Bletchley Park as a group, could be described by this one example.CaptJayRuffins (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that logic would just lead to pages being created for any of the women codebreakers at Bletchley Park, just belonging to a notable group doesn't confer individual notability. Mztourist (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources look good, and this is an interesting biogrpahy. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources "look good"? The ones that don't even mention her or the relatively local, non-bylined obituaries? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been hoping that independent/reliable sources would emerge during this discussion to specifically verify Whitton's notability; otherwise there seems to be a risk of WP:SYNTH with the existing sources. Per WP:SUSTAINED, "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability," and "a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it."" There are higher-profile WRENs who would more clearly meet the notability guidelines, and the news and museum sources in this article could be incorporated into the WRENs article. Beccaynr (talk) 00:12, 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. Consensus is that this not yet enough of a thing in terms of coverage to merit an article. Can be draftified or userfied on request at WP:REFUND. (As an aside, under our current notability practices they'd have more chance to get an article if they were the D-tier comics superhero team the title suggests. Maybe they should invest in some spandex?) Sandstein 19:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Force (United States Congress)[edit]

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

WP:SUSTAINED WP:NTEMP Probably best to keep this as a draft for the time beingas the Freedom Force has not maintained sustained significant media coverage after its initial creation as a "conservative reaction to The Squad." Whereas The Squad has its fair share of continued and sustained media coverage, its counterpart has made relatively little noise as of yet. If its relevance is predicated on being solely a reaction with little yet done I think it should be shelved for the time being until its actions as a group makes some inroads. Ornithoptera (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ornithoptera (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete much too soon to have clear evidence that this is a group that is defined and excepted in regular discourse as an actual thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until we actually have documentation indicating that this is a meaningful group (and not a transient publicity stunt), or delete (recreating it wouldn't be too hard). The text would need work before the draft could be restored; I mean, denounce socialism and support small businesses? In American politics, that's a content-free phrase. Everyone claims to support small businesses. And everyone in the center or the right will denounce socialism in one way or another, though what they mean by socialism is up in the air — anything being denounced at the moment is called socialist. XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (or delete). No evidence that notability is WP:SUSTAINED. Generalrelative (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete informal, low coverage, and unclear who even is part of it or what it is. It can be rewritten if it ever comes to fruition.Eccekevin (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless this "group" receives more national coverage, I don't see a point in keeping this article. It seems the members have only spoken about the group in passing and were chosen randomly; nothing seems official. Miss HollyJ (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/selective merge to The Squad (United States Congress). Freedom Force has received coverage in reliable sources, but perhaps it is not sustained enough for an independent article. As it is a valid search term, a redirect would be helpful to readers. It is reported in sources that this informal group is a conservative response to The Squad, so a brief mention in that article seems reasonable in my opinion. Redirecting versus out right deletion would make it easier to restore this article as a starting point (if more coverage occurs). TJMSmith (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify if and when there is sustained and lasting coverage, then the article can be recreated. --Enos733 (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I vote in favor of deleting this article. This article brings nothing to contributing to what is established. It also lacks significant sources to back up that this is indeed an official coalition group of people. This is only in response to an already formed congressional group The Squad (United States Congress). The Squad is an established coalition and has been politicized throughout the media. Freedom Force is only a direct response to that. For that reason I vote in favor of deleting. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 08:00, 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 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 03:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucan Community College[edit]

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

Only section other than the introduction is a simple collection of vandalism and unsourced claims of non notable alumni. Only source provided fails to meet WP:NOTE, WP:INDY and WP:RELY. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is time we stop having articles sourced only to the subject's own webpage. In this case we had a lot of junk in the alumni and staff page that had to be removed. Alumni assertions should be sourced, I am thinking of removing the last one as unsourced as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 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 merge to High Voltage Software. czar 06:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Grinder (video game)[edit]

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

The game was never released and only early footage and screenshots were released, so it does not seem like it should have an entry.The Editor 155 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article also lists the game as being for Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360, although those systems have long been discontinued.The Editor 155 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to High Voltage Software, where for some odd reason it isn't even mentioned. I can't find that it was ever previewed in any greater detail, the only coverage about it being through interviews (which counts as WP:PRIMARY), or WP:ROUTINE announcements. And so, it fails to meet WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Heist (video game) is a good example of a cancelled video game that was extensively covered pre-cancellation, and this one doesn't even come close, sadly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be enough notable content for a merger?The Editor 155 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just the main development info to their history section, not really much. WP:ATD applies, which prefers redirect/merge when or if possible to deletion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea, because most of the content in The Grinder article would not be notable in itself.The Editor 155 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The best source is that Nintendo Life source[77]. It's just one source, but notice that it's dated ten years after the game was set to release. There are released games that don't get media coverage a decade later. So this is probably more notable than most dead games that show up to AFD. ApLundell (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But is the information in the Nintendo Life source notable enough for the game to have its own article?The Editor 155 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Nintendo Life's original reporting, but just a share of Unseen64's video. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I hadn't noticed that. When I looked at it earlier, for some reason I thought the video was produced by Nintendo Life. (I'll admit I've gotten into the habit of skipping the first third of any embedded video.) You're right. That weakens it. ApLundell (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think the information is notable?The Editor 155 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bit, maybe. I mostly wanted to call attention to that source because it's got more meat to it than the sources for this type of article usually have. (Usually it's an press release from two years before the scheduled release ... and nothing else.) ApLundell (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think should happen with The Grinder Wikipedia article?The Editor 155 (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. There are plenty of sources with varying depth available, especially with the Liam Robertson/Nintendo Life source above (which I do believe is reliable). However, the article is in very poor shape and should be entirely reworked before it is brought back to mainspace. IceWelder [✉] 08:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the other merge !voter above. Only thing salvageable is the "Development" section; everything else is hearsay. ~EdGl talk 18:00, 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 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 03:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of regions of Somaliland by Human Development Index[edit]

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

per WP:NOTSTATS. New article; there are hundreds of articles similar to this (see {{Subnational entities by Human Development Index}}), many created by Afus199620 but I don't see how any of these are notable. The two references are the UN Human Development Report (which generated the data) and Global Data Lab (which re-publishes it), both of which are just used as statistical databases. The most recent AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regions of Thailand by Human Development Index, closed as "merge", but the keep votes seem to largely be WP:OTHERSTUFF. With consensus here, I will likely do some bulk AFD nominations or merges of these pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:12, 12 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, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:51, 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 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Ruhl[edit]

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

The article comes with several sources, some of them in reliable publications. They fail to convince me that the subject is notable for more than a single thing: a fitness trainer whose legs have been amputated. Apart from potentially falling foul of WP:1E, I think this article also verges on WP:MILL since there will be many people with a story very similar to the subject's who received coverage. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are muliple references on the article that seem to meet WP:BASIC "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" and WP:ANYBIO "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" Jeepday (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they are presumed notable. I don't dispute that they meet the coverage threshold. However, I think that the subject is only notable for one event and therefor should not have an article (WP:1E). They also might fall under what is described at WP:ROTM. Could you elaborate how your vote answers these concerns? Modussiccandi (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the subject's career can be describes as 'of the enduring historical record'. If that were the case, every person with a similar story would be equally notable. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the article needs to be expanded. As the references indicate having his legs amputated is not what makes him notable, his accomplishments over several years is what makes him notable. Jeepday (talk) 12:13, 20 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) 12:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references do show that he is notable. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SIGCOV from several reliable sources make him notable. Rogermx (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable subject with significant coverage in RSs. Luciapop (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't intend to stand in the way of the consensus here and I'm inclined to withdraw the nomination as a speedy keep. But would any of the keep !voters (except Jeepday) care to refute the actual point of my nomination? You all make GNG based arguments although I indicate in the first sentence that I do not object to his meeting GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:06, 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.

JaMiss[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pair Go[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Random sources, 3 of which are from the same source (the company that owns the trademark). I can't find any reliable sources for this either (what is the talk?). Also looks like there are quite a few SPAs in the history. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge with Go (game) Even though I also haven't found coverage on the game itself, it seems pretty popular within the Go communities. I have found mentions and tournaments on the pages of the Go Asossiations and Federations in Europe, the USA, UK, and Russia. There's also an article dedicated to the amateur championship - International Amateur Pair Go Championship which I believe should also be merged or deleted (as it fails notability guidelines). Less Unless (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a game of go with two players on each side, who are not allowed to communicate between each other (or am I missing something). Already mentioned in Go variants, which seems to me to be enough. The content is largely promotional. Nigej (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage yet. Content is somewhat biased and promotional. In the very least the article needs a major re-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janesalway (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination, fails in WP:GNG Sliekid (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination, fails WP:GNG and a large proportion of the article appears to be promotional. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 16:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no citations at all. Doesn't meet the guidelines. BlakesMa (talk) 23:47, 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 keep. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zane Birdwell[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, and only barely meets one of the criteria for musicians.

A previous AFD discussion in 2010 ended with a Keep consensus, on the basis that the subject "has won or been nominated for a major music award" (WP:MUSICBIO). The subject did contribute as an engineer to an audiobook which won a Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album and can therefore be said to have "won a Grammy" alongside Michael J. Fox and two other producers who worked on the audiobook.

I believe the previous discussion over-represented the notability of this award. Genre-specific Grammys (especially non-music genres), while prestigious, are nowhere near as "major" as general awards. Moreover, the subject was not the sole or primary recipient of this Grammy, as they did not originate the work, and they were not singled out for their exceptional work as an audio engineer. This credit is not enough to stand as the subject's sole notability-establishing accomplishment (see WP:BLP1E), and I think the article should be reconsidered for deletion. RoxySaunders (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:34, 5 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 12:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominator makes reasonable points about a collaborative Grammy award, but a win is still a win and there is no doubt that Birdwell has a major award per the requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN. The article needs to be cleaned up however. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doomsdayer520. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - technically meets WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. In other words, if an article has no sources in it, this does not automatically default to the topic being non-notable. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Limet[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2009 Themightyquill (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 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. Fenix down (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Roche (coach)[edit]

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

PROD rationale was Fails WP:BASIC; has been tagged for notability for over 2 years. A WP:BEFORE search revealed routine news of him being appointed as coach for the two teams that he coached but no significant coverage.

Contested with reasoning this is a borderline case and needs more scrutiny than a PROD can provide. Take it to AfD if you want.

Here are the sources that I found and my reasons for why they don't help with GNG:

[78] - a routine announcement of him getting the Mariners job
[79] - as above
[80] - a routine announcement from the Wanderers' own website about him getting the job
[81] - a routine W-League announcement of his appointment
[82] - mentioned very briefly, not enough for biographical notability
[83] - trivial mention
[84] - just a Q&A in a local paper

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL on evidence available. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Setreis (talk) 16:21, 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 merge to Wally Hammond. – Joe (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Wally Hammond[edit]

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

The consensus about such lists is that they should not exist unless there is coverage in reliable sources where they are discussed as a group. As no coverage was found, so this list fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the recently closed (as merge) discussions have shown that you are talking shit. Spike 'em (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which discussion? Link it. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and not merge to player article per WP:NOTSTATS as per three most recent discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. Ajf773 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for separate article, WP:NOTSTATS does not count as centuries are a small and rather exclusive part of a cricketers career. If it was his whole international career details I would have said delete, but it's not so its def a merge.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closing admin - there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with very strong NO merge. Hammond's article is a Featured Article. It made FA status, on the back of Sarastro1's work without needing a table such as this. It should stay as such. Although I can see the place for stats tables, and might consider one or two very short summary tables, it's clear that we can write FA's without them. That should give us a pretty good indication that they are unnecessary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Detailing significant numbers in prose alone is cumbersome and impairs readability, so tables are the way to go, especially in a statistics driven sport. There is no reason to believe FA status would be affected by having such a table, and some would view it as an improvement. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:12, 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 merge to Justin Langer. – Joe (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Justin Langer[edit]

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

The consensus about such lists is that they should not exist unless there is coverage in reliable sources where they are discussed as a group. As no coverage was found, so this list fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I simply don't believe that there is no source that would compile his centuries together, but the obvious solution is to merge the list of centuries to Justin Langer. A valid alternative to deletion that is not inappropriate. The sourcing is entirely fine for an article outside of a list. Deletion is a poor and lazy option here and editors need to find other solutions rather than just nominating the article for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article per above. Nigej (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article as per above. Setreis (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and not merge to player article per WP:NOTSTATS as per three most recent discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. Ajf773 (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a list of centuries in the player's article would not violate WP:NOTSTATS. The prohibition in that policy is for excessive listings of unexplained statistics. The proposal for a merge here is to merge one list of Langer's centuries only, which is a limited list, in which each entry is validly sourced and explained; centuries are a well-recognised achievement by a batsman in cricket so it's not indiscriminate or inappropriate to the article; and with a bit of background text the list can be easily incorporated as part of the main article. I'm actually not sure what the purpose of a redirect with no merging would be - the proposal for a merge is to maintain some of the content in a place that is potentially more appropriate for it. A merge is not inappropriate and is the best solution. Deus et lex (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A merge sets a precedent that every cricketer needs his or her own list of centuries on their Wiki article. Lists of centuries are indeed statistics, and excessive, especially when the content is entirely sourced from one source (ESPNCricinfo). This is why I'm opposed to merging these articles into players' articles, key achievements should be summarised by prose, not as a table of individual innings/matches. Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are poor responses that don't change anything I have said above. A merge does not set any sort of precedent. One list (of centuries, which are limited) is not excessive, and your comment that it is based on one source does not make it "unexplained" (and it's a stupid comment anyway, as cricket statistics can easily be found elsewhere (ever heard of Wisden, for example?)). Most of the article is prose anyway, adding a single table won't change things overall. Deus et lex (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you understood me the first time, but if a player has scored, say, 20 international centuries across all formats in the game, does that mean a player who has scored just three deserves a list under their profile. This is exactly the precedent we are setting by merging. Also can you define excessive? What is encyclopedic about knowing so many details about the match in which the player achieved each century? Ajf773 (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly understood you the first time. Your arguments are bad. This is an AfD for Justin Langer. It is not some request for comment about all cricket players, so don't try to make this something that it isn't and make spurious arguments. There is no "precedent". A century is the highest honour for a batsman, so adding in his individual centuries is encyclopaedic - it's sourced and valid. There is no valid argument for what you are trying to propose. Deus et lex (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's NOT an AfD for Justin Langer. It's an AfD for a list of centuries scored by him and entirely sourced by a single reference and easily found using the statsguru underneath that reference. The only details that really matter are the number of career centuries, not every single little detail of when/where/how each one was attained. Ajf773 (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the AfD does not relate to lists of cricket centuries for every cricketer, it only relates to those by Justin Langer. Please stop trying to take points out of this to justify your claim, it just makes your points look even more spurious. Deus et lex (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My vote to redirect (or delete) stands. And my reasoning applies to lists relating to any other international cricketer. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your "reasoning" makes no sense, and that has been borne out here by the consensus. Deus et lex (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge My first preference is a small merge to keep some of the details. My second preference would be redirect. My third preference is delete. My last preference would be keep. WilliamSpeare (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article. NavjotSR (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for separate article, WP:NOTSTATS does not count as centuries are a small and rather exclusive part of a cricketers career. If it was his whole international career details I would have said delete, but it's not so its def a merge.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For those who cite WP:NOTSTATS, this policy applies to content no matter where it is presented. Ajf773 (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closing admin - there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Detailing significant numbers in prose alone is cumbersome and impairs readability, so tables are the way to go, especially in a statistics driven sport. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:14, 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 merge to Martin Crowe. – Joe (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Martin Crowe[edit]

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

The consensus about such lists is that they should not exist unless there is coverage in reliable sources where they are discussed as a group. As no coverage was found, so this list fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article. Nigej (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article as per above. Setreis (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and not merge to player article per WP:NOTSTATS as per three most recent discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. Ajf773 (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are some details worthy of merging? Even if only a very small partial merge? WilliamSpeare (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly some of the lead. I don't agree with merging the list. Ajf773 (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article. NavjotSR (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for separate article, WP:NOTSTATS does not count as centuries are a small and rather exclusive part of a cricketers career. If it was his whole international career details I would have said delete, but it's not so its def a merge.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closing admin - there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Detailing significant numbers in prose alone is cumbersome and impairs readability, so tables are the way to go, especially in a statistics driven sport. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:14, 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 merge to Colin Cowdrey. – Joe (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Colin Cowdrey[edit]

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

The consensus about such lists is that they should not exist unless there is coverage in reliable sources where they are discussed as a group. As no coverage was found, so this list fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article. Nigej (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article as per above. Setreis (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and not merge to player article per WP:NOTSTATS as per three most recent discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. Ajf773 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for separate article, WP:NOTSTATS does not count as centuries are a small and rather exclusive part of a cricketers career. If it was his whole international career details I would have said delete, but it's not so its def a merge.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Potential issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT – his season-by-season batting averages are more of a problem and could be removed to accomodate this. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closing admin - there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page. In Cowdrey's case there is already a super-long table on the page with little context and the article is really quite long as well. Adding this table, as it is, would actually create more stats and less understanding. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:50, 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 merge to Desmond Haynes. – Joe (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Desmond Haynes[edit]

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

The consensus about such lists is that they should not exist unless there is coverage in reliable sources where they are discussed as a group. As no coverage was found, so this list fails WP:NLIST. Plenty of space on parent article if we need any sort of selective merge. Störm (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 35 centuries across his career is a notable achievement and is plenty enough for a standalone list. 25, there or there abouts, should be the cut-off. StickyWicket (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

25 is an arbitrary number. Ajf773 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article. This article is longer than the main article, which is crazy if you ask me. Nigej (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article as per above. Setreis (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and not merge to player article per WP:NOTSTATS as per three most recent discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. Ajf773 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for separate article, WP:NOTSTATS does not count as centuries are a small and rather exclusive part of a cricketers career. If it was his whole international career details I would have said delete, but it's not so its def a merge.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closing admin - there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Detailing significant numbers in prose alone is cumbersome and impairs readability, so tables are the way to go, especially in a statistics driven sport. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:15, 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 merge to Michael Hussey. – Joe (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Michael Hussey[edit]

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

The consensus about such lists is that they should not exist unless there is coverage in reliable sources where they are discussed as a group. As no coverage was found, so this list fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I simply don't believe that there is no source that would compile his centuries together, but the obvious solution is to merge the list of centuries to Michael Hussey. A valid alternative to deletion that is not inappropriate. The sourcing is entirely fine for an article outside of a list. Deletion is a poor and lazy option here and editors need to find other solutions rather than just nominating the article for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Dues et lex makes a compelling case to marge, he hasn't made 25 centuries which should be the cut-off point for lists. StickyWicket (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article. Nigej (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and not merge to player article per WP:NOTSTATS as per three most recent discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. Ajf773 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a list of centuries in the player's article would not violate WP:NOTSTATS. The prohibition in that policy is for excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Note that that requires the listings to be excessive and unexplained. The proposal for a merge here is to merge one list of Hussey's centuries only, which is a limited list, in which each entry is validly sourced and explained; centuries are a well-recognised achievement by a batsman in cricket so it's not indiscriminate or inappropriate to the article; and with a bit of background text the list can be easily incorporated as part of the main article. I'm actually not sure what the purpose of a redirect with no merging would be - the proposal for a merge is to maintain some of the content in a place that is potentially more appropriate for it. A merge is not inappropriate and is the best solution. Deus et lex (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A merge sets a precedent that every cricketer needs his or her own list of centuries on their Wiki article. Lists of centuries are indeed statistics, and excessive, especially when the content is entirely sourced from one source (ESPNCricinfo). This is why I'm opposed to merging these articles into players' articles, key achievements should be summarised by prose, not as a table of individual innings/matches. Ajf773 (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are poor responses that don't change anything I have said above. A merge does not set any sort of precedent. One list (of centuries, which are limited) is not excessive, and your comment that it is based on one source does not make it "unexplained" (and it's a stupid comment anyway, as cricket statistics can easily be found elsewhere (ever heard of Wisden, for example?)). Most of the article is prose anyway, adding a single table won't change things overall. Deus et lex (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you understood me the first time, but if a player has scored, say, 20 international centuries across all formats in the game, does that mean a player who has scored just three deserves a list under their profile. This is exactly the precedent we are setting by merging. Also can you define excessive? What is encyclopedic about knowing so many details about the match in which the player achieved each century? Ajf773 (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly understood you the first time. Your arguments are bad. This is an AfD for Michael Hussey. It is not some request for comment about all cricket players, so don't try to make this something that it isn't and make spurious arguments. There is no "precedent". A century is the highest honour for a batsman, so adding in his individual centuries is encyclopaedic - it's sourced and valid. There is no valid argument for what you are trying to propose. Deus et lex (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's NOT an AfD for Michael Hussey. It's an AfD for a list of centuries scored by him and entirely sourced by a single reference and easily found using the statsguru underneath that reference. The only details that really matter are the number of career centuries, not every single little detail of when/where/how each one was attained. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the AfD does not relate to lists of cricket centuries for every cricketer, it only relates to those by Michael Hussey. Please stop trying to take points out of this to justify your claim, it just makes your points look even more spurious. Deus et lex (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My vote to redirect (or delete) stands. And my reasoning applies to lists relating to any other international cricketer. Ajf773 (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No need for separate article, WP:NOTSTATS does not count as centuries are a small and rather exclusive part of a cricketers career. If it was his whole international career details I would have said delete, but it's not so its def a merge.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closing admin - there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Detailing significant numbers in prose alone is cumbersome and impairs readability, so tables are the way to go, especially in a statistics driven sport. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:15, 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 merge to Cheteshwar Pujara. – Joe (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Cheteshwar Pujara[edit]

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

The consensus about such lists is that they should not exist unless there is coverage in reliable sources where they are discussed as a group. As no coverage was found, so this list fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article. Nigej (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per above. Setreis (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and not merge to player article per WP:NOTSTATS as per three most recent discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. Ajf773 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the closer states in each case that Anyone who wishes to rescue the content from behind the redirect, and merge into the main article, is welcome to do so at their convenience. Spike 'em (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article. NavjotSR (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article. -Lesenwriter (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for separate article, WP:NOTSTATS does not count as centuries are a small and rather exclusive part of a cricketers career. If it was his whole international career details I would have said delete, but it's not so its def a merge.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closing admin - there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Detailing significant numbers in prose alone is cumbersome and impairs readability, so tables are the way to go, especially in a statistics driven sport. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:15, 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 merge to Marvan Atapattu. – Joe (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Marvan Atapattu[edit]

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

The consensus about such lists is that they should not exist unless there is coverage in reliable sources where they are discussed as a group. As no coverage was found, so this list fails WP:NLIST. Plenty of space on parent article in case if we want selective merge. Störm (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article. Nigej (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per above. Setreis (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and not merge to player article per WP:NOTSTATS as per three most recent discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. Ajf773 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for separate article, WP:NOTSTATS does not count as centuries are a small and rather exclusive part of a cricketers career. If it was his whole international career details I would have said delete, but it's not so its def a merge.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closing admin - there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Detailing significant numbers in prose alone is cumbersome and impairs readability, so tables are the way to go, especially in a statistics driven sport. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:15, 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 merge to Faf du Plessis. – Joe (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Faf du Plessis[edit]

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

The consensus about such lists is that they should not exist unless there is coverage in reliable sources where they are discussed as a group. As no coverage was found, so this list fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On the basis he is still playing for South Africa and I'd imagine will score a few more centuries, reaching 25 which should be the cut-off for lists. StickyWicket (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "cut-off" as per policy. Either the article is notable, or it is not. Ajf773 (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article. Nigej (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and not merge to player article per WP:NOTSTATS as per three most recent discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. Ajf773 (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for separate article, WP:NOTSTATS does not count as centuries are a small and rather exclusive part of a cricketers career. If it was his whole international career details I would have said delete, but it's not so its def a merge.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closing admin - there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Detailing significant numbers in prose alone is cumbersome and impairs readability, so tables are the way to go, especially in a statistics driven sport. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:15, 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 deleted as G5, G7. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TanaCon: What Really Happened[edit]

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

Article about a documentary released direct to streaming video with little to no non-routine coverage in reliable sources. The article in Teen Vogue citing a documentary about the same thing winning a Streamy Award is about a different documentary with a different title, produced by a different person - Shane Dawson, not Michael Weist. FalconK (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

moved from talk page

MOVED FROM TALK PAGE: This page should not be speedily deleted because... (valid sources and formatting that meets requirements for inclusion on wikipedia according to notability and such guidelines for film along with edits from other admins, and even a discussion of talk page with recommendations taken by editor) --2603:3018:1402:FB00:C0A7:305B:DEA6:A74E (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Meets notability requirements for film Narwhal90 (talk) 14: 22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Even a quick google search will show multiple top news site coverages, it was also heavily referenced on social media by several involved parties. ^[1] Also features established names in the industry. This film is verified on social media, the one on Amazon - not the one mentioned above.^[2]

There was 2 different films and documentaries - one by Shane Dawson on Youtube (as mentioned above) - and this one regarding the article in questions by Michael Weist on Amazon.

a few helpful links

^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11]

References

Narwhal90 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This MAY be eligible for speedy deletion if ReaderofthePack consents, as he is the only non-block-evading editor with substantial contributions. Criteria would be a "WP:G6" combination of {{db-banned}} for part of it and {{db-author}} for the rest. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion: {{db-reason|1=2 major editors, one was editing while blocked/banned, one consents to deletion, see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TanaCon: What Really Happened]]. Please close that AFD after deleting. |help=off}} davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G5 and G7 so admins going through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion don't have to go through the "undefined reason" category. Justarandomamerican (talk) Also, have a nice day! 15:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above, G8 applies, so speedy deletion is appropriate. 174.212.238.174 (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G8? "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page"? Please clarify. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely a typo of WP:G7, from what I can tell. Justarandomamerican (talk) Also, have a nice day! 15:59, 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. — The Earwig ^talk 01:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Register Quality Systems[edit]

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

Advertisement of a company. Lack of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable and independent. DMySon 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DMySon 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of nobility. Fails WP:NCORP RationalPuff (talk) 10:56, 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. — The Earwig ^talk 01:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simplus[edit]

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

Non-notable. It's been here from 2006, when standards were very much lower. None of the references meets WP:NCORP--most of them are pure notices of acquisitions or funding; the rest are press releases--some even marked "Press release" or published in the sort. of business journals that exist primarily for PR. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: The present article provides routine coverage on a services company, supported by routine announcements regarding funding, acquisition, etc., which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing evidence of attained notability in its own right, but redirect to the article on its owner Infosys, where it is briefly mentioned, could be an option. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:35, 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 and redirect to Direct Line Group. — The Earwig ^talk 00:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Line for Business[edit]

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

recreation of an article originally created by an orangemoody sock. Pure advertising, which is sufficient reason for deletion And , for good measure, it's not notable, the references are either notes or PR disguised as journalism. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly Salt to prevent further recreation by possible vested interests. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article fulfils the GNG in that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject written in a NPOV. Further, it is not written like an advertisement in that it does not contain messages to sell or promote a product (which are key to advertising according to the Wikipedia page on the subject). The page mentions the company's products, senior staff, commercial collaborations, and the novel and note-worthy 'clicks and mortar' venture. These points are useful information about any any company and do not qualify as 'advertising' or 'puffery'. Indeed all the points meet the primary criteria for notability of a company.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: why would anyone not associated with the company or thinking of doing business with them care who the senior staff is, or the exact names of its products? DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: This page does not list "the exact names of [the company's] products" (in fact, it only says that the company offers "a range of business insurance products to landlords and the small business sector"), so I am not sure what the issue is here? Regarding, "anyone not associated with the company or thinking of doing business with them" having an interest in the names of senior staff, respectfully I disagree. Firstly, most people doing business with an insurance probably aren't too bothered who the senior staff are just as long as they do a good job, while the general public more likely are interested. This is certainly seems to be the view of the business editor of the London Evening Standard, a publication with a general readership. Sadly, BAME individuals are woefully unrepresented in UK boardrooms, (as this study reported in The Guardian a year ago shows: Top UK firms failing to increase boardroom diversity, study shows). Hence, Jasvinder Gakhal makes a good interview subject - she is of South Asian ethnicity, she is a woman (also unrepresented in the C-suite), and she is the head of one of the larger and most recognisable insurance companies in the UK. This makes the story (both her and the company) notable. The Evening Standard is fourth largest in terms of daily circulation in the UK, so this editorial position carries some weight.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into main article. Just a subsidy of a larger company that has been hived for tax and financial purposes. As a customer you see the same branding and same website.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. all sources are trivial ~RAM (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- *edit Or as AllyD suggests, redirect to Direct Line Group is a viable alternative to deletion HighKing⁺⁺ 20:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Direct Line Group: The references in the article are routine coverage of this subsidiary and joint initiatives with which it as been associated. The Evening Standard Q&A with the director on her roles in this and other parts of the parent company does not demonstrate notability of the subsidiary itself. It is mentioned in the Direct Line Group article, so perhapa a redirect is an option. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sketchy references - mostly press releases - the references in Business News Wales, Edinburgh Evening News and Business Insider are passing mentions - no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources - does not meet WP:ORGSIG - cheers, Epinoia (talk) 01:47, 31 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 and rename the page. No !votes to delete, consensus of the editors was that this was a cleanup/naming issue and should be addressed as such. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (miscellaneous)[edit]

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

While the base Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography is split up into narrower sublists by decade rather than being handled entirely in the parent list, Wikipedia does not have a practice of supplementing easily defined sublist groupings with a "miscellaneous" sublist to chunk out the stragglers that don't fit any of the other sublists. Any "miscellaneous" WB animated films that can't be chunked out into one of the sublists that already existed should simply be listed in the parent list itself, rather than getting spun off into their own standalone "miscellaneous" list. And furthermore, it isn't even entirely clear that all or even most of these were genuinely "Looney Tunes" or "Merrie Melodies" films in the first place — an animated short film isn't automatically Looney Tunes just because it came from Warner Brothers, as witness the "Following is list of various shorts that generally don't fit elsewere as they don't feature any characters from Looney Tunes" disclaimer in this page. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, these films are not Merry Melodies or Looney Tunes shorts, if anyhting these are all the other films Warner Bros Cartoon Inc produced between 1930s-1960s, Looney Tunes And Merrie Melodies: A Complete Illustrated Guide To The Warner Bros. Cartoons as Jerry Beck states in his old book Looney Tunes And Merrie Melodies: A Complete Illustrated Guide To The Warner Bros. Cartoons on page 376 No folks, that's not all During it's sixty-year existence, in additon to its theatrical shorts, the Warner Bros, cartoon studio at various times became involved with other projects—for Warners and others—which clearly fall outside any standard categories. Although the book then does poor job of seperating these other projects form projects that actually still used the characters from Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies. Its more correct to seperate these things form the Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies for obvious reasons, with that said the article's name is misleading since none of them don't have anything to do with Looney Tunes or Merrie Melodies, so more correct title would actually be List of Warner Bros Cartoons productions/filmography and move the article there. DoctorHver (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is a rename sufficient to address the issues here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename as this has nothing to do with Merry Melodies or Looney Tunes cartoons. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename as per Donaldd23. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as I am in agreement with those who wanted this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:17, 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) 11:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Damned Thing (Masters of Horror)[edit]

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

Article does not cite any sources and a quick search on the web shows that this episode fails WP:GNG. If you don't agree with this, keep in mind that merging is also an option. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 01:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few other articles from the same series that also fail WP:GNG, that I haven't nominated at the moment, but might nominate later depending on the outcome of this discussion: Family (Masters of Horror), Sounds Like, Right to Die (Masters of Horror), and We All Scream for Ice Cream (Masters of Horror). Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?}

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't imagine keep-worthy sourcing can't be found for all. Directed by the most iconic filmmakers in the genre. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:58, 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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Wu[edit]

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

Article about a run-of-the-mill billionaire that fails to cite reliable sources and only recites his resume. All mentions in reliable sources that I can find are announcements about the company Ideanomics. FalconK (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Falcon Kirtaran
https://www.forbes.com/profile/bruno-wu/?sh=33959e3c642d	?	?	Insubstantial biographical information only	✘ No
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ideanomics-announces-director-changes-301198444.html	Press release	?	?	✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/global/2000/1127/0324146a.html?sh=2625a32e6f24	Article about Bruno's wife; Bruno is used as a source and lightly covered	?	?	✘ No
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cannes-seven-stars-media-chairman-523924	Interview with Bruno, making it a dependent source	?	?	✘ No
https://deadline.com/2013/06/bruno-wu-qa-is-he-mr-chinawood-513103/	Interview with Bruno, making it a dependent source	?	?	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete per source assessment table above. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Huang, Wenguang (2012-04-10). "Meet China's biggest dealmaker in Hollywood. Instead of waiting for blockbuster Hollywood movies to make it in China, Chinese investor Bruno Wu is going to Hollywood to help make them himself". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
  The article has 307 words of independent biographical background about Bruno Wu before it prints a non-independent interview of him. 307 words of biographical background is significant coverage.
2. Webb, Tim (2009-04-01). "Bruno Wu: The empire of the rising Sun takes on the all-conquering Murdoch. Uncensored: the online ambitions of the man who's going into battle to be number one in Chinese media". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
3. Schloss, Glen (1998-05-04). "Tycoon eyeing ATV locks legal horns with US mogul". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
4. "Media mogul in the making demonstrates all-round talent". South China Morning Post. 1998-08-03. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
5. Flannery, Russell (2017-02-05). "China Media Businessman Bruno Wu Is Back In The Stock Market With Wecast". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
6. Fabre, Clarisse (2013-05-22). "Bruno Wu, "Mr Chinawood"". Le Monde (in French). Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
7. Tattum, Colin (2010-10-15). "Birmingham City bring in top Chinese media mogul. Blues have beefed up their board by appointing Chinese big hitter Dr Bruno Zheng Wu as joint vice-chairman". Birmingham Mail. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
8. "综述：沸沸扬扬的"吴征杨澜事件"" [Summary: THe tumultuous Bruno Wu and Yang Lan incident]. Southern Weekly (in Chinese). 2002-01-10. Archived from the original on 2019-07-15. Retrieved 2021-01-25 – via China Internet Information Center.
9. Tartaglione, Nancy (2013-06-05). "Bruno Wu Q&A: Is He Mr. Chinawood?". Deadline Hollywood. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
  The article has 366 words of independent biographical background about Bruno Wu before it prints a non-independent interview of him. 366 words of biographical background is significant coverage.
10. 黎明 (2020-08-11). 明轩 (ed.). "传杨澜夫妇出事吴征被抓供出江绵恒" [The news is that the Yang Lan couple experienced misfortune. Bruno was arrested and confessed to Jiang Mianheng] (in Chinese). NDTV. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
11. 许征; 牟小容 (2007-07-24). "丈夫吴征首谈杨澜不介意妻子风光盖过自己(图)" [Husband Bruno Wu talks about Yang Lan and doesn't mind his wife's glory overshadowing him (photo)]. Chongqing Morning Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25 – via Sina Corp.
12. "他们支撑着香港娱乐业：传媒帝国-吴征(图)" [They support the Hong Kong entertainment industry: Media empire. Bruno Wu (photo)] (in Chinese). Sina Corp. 2008-11-21. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bruno Wu to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he seems notable to me. Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG per the sources provided by Cunard. Best, VocalIndia (talk) 15:41, 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 keep. It appears that the consensus is to keep the page, as a DAB. Pinging Bearian, Doc James, AngusWOOF, and SmokeyJoe to make sure what I did on the page is what you all intended. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In utero[edit]

Procedural timestamp. 04:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if this belongs to RfD, to make sure my nomination is submit successful, the nomination goes here. Because of the original text is transfer to wikt, So this should be a wikt soft redirect, however, there is an album with a close name. So I think it would be better to change this page to dab. Alcremie (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth it to restore the last substantive version, even. While obviously unsourced and limited, there is information that goes beyond what we see in the corresponding simple dictionary entry, and the article could and should be fleshed out. Abeg92contribs 15:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Treat as a DAB page. Uterus does not have a section suitable for a simple redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore previous version which was made into a dictionary definition the day before it was up for RFD. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note @IN, Abeg92, SmokeyJoe, and AngusWOOF: WP:Deletion venues -- [Articles for deletion is for] articles and other pages in the main namespace (e.g. disambiguation pages), excluding redirects. Given the number of participants, I have attempted to remedy the venue through a move to make the transition from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/In utero as painless as possible. Warmest regards, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer to see it as a Speedy Keep WP:SK#1, no rationale for deletion. This discussion could be held on its talk page. RfD accepts any redirect discussion, but for AfD and MfD, "D" means "deletion". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @SmokeyJoe: If someone else wants to close it, I have no qualms with that. The water was a bit muddy between RfD and AfD because the hatnote made it not a true hard or soft redirect; on the other hand, MfD was certainly not the correct venue. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have no qualms on this page. I think the old version was OK, and ideally "in utero" will be given thorough coverage at Uterus, at which point:

In utero can become a redirect to In Utero (Nirvana studio album); In Utero (Nirvana studio album) can have hatnote pointing to Uterus#in utero.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC) edited SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep and restore the definition as a disambig. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a dab. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 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 delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Šulgan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOX. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 19:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 19:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 19:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.Donniediamond (talk) 14:34, 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 delete. (Consensus is clear despite the two duplicate delete !votes.) One user has advocated for keeping the article, but they have not presented appropriate sourcing to demonstrate the notability of this subject. — The Earwig ^talk 00:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid Akhtar[edit]

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

Kemalcan (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Kemalcan what's the rationale for deletion? Spiderone 22:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he does not meet the notability criterias for actors. (see Wikipedia:Notability (people) ) --Kemalcan (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Pari (2018 Pakistani film) per WP:NOT YET (actors). Also, the career section was directly copied from his IMDb profile. GSS ^💬 06:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation for Not Deletion - Kemalcan The actor has done many TV Serials and has worked in a Film in a leading role. He is currently gearing up for another film release, it was delayed due to Coronoavirus. He also has great fan following on social media and has established a household name in the country. Fosterzone 7:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Please check. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. --Kemalcan (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Career info updated - GSS The Career section is now different to his IMDb profile. Fosterzone 8:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete Non notable subject.Luciapop (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. (No significant roles in multiple notable movies etc., no large fan base, no unique contributions, lack of independent, sources.) --Kemalcan (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Kemalcan, I think you are the proposer of this AfD, as such, this would count as a duplicate vote, and the delete should be struck, but the comment could remain.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NACTOR as of yet. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable subject. Luciapop (talk) 14:00, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slavitza Jovan[edit]

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

Possible nonnotable actress. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bare cast lists and IMDb are not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:37, 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) 11:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Gutman[edit]

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

GNG fail. The only half-decent coverage relate to him being fired from a job. The article was reported at COIN for possible COI issues. Possibly (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has coverage in Forbes and Techcrunch. Has written for some well known publications such as Harvard Business Review. He is also a TedX speaker and organizer of events. In my search of google news, I found other sources not listed. I have added a couple. Article is poorly written IMO. Peter303x (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal: the forbes article is written by him - not independent coverage. TedX does not confer notability and there are hundreds of TedX events each year amounting to minor seminar series. Writing for the Harvard Business Review does not meet the criteria of WP:JOURNALIST, nor would being on the staff of any major publication. FalconK (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Forbes is not necessarily a reliable source. The coverage is weak. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing he could possibly be notable for is getting fired from HealthTap, which is what the techcrunch and vox articles are both about, and that would toll WP:BIO1E. FalconK (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:37, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bosch Baháʼí School[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, WP:NSCHOOL - No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Serv181920 (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep - note that historically it was preceded by the Geyserville school which was in the newspapers back to the 1920s so there should be a section or daughter article just on that. I'll add sources to the talk page. Lot's out there if one looks. Smkolins (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep - long history and well documented. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as "one of three major centers of Baháʼí learning." I don't see why this should be deleted. 10:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DmitriRomanovJr (talk • contribs)
Strong keep per reasoning above.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with comments from prior reviewers. Peter303x (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep notable, one of the major Baha'i schools in the US, with well-documented history. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can anyone actually link any coverage of this school from independent reliable sources? I don't actually see any. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - tons of newspaper articles on the talk page just starting. Smkolins (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Smkolins: Thanks, I didn't see that before. It's a long list without descriptions and all of the ones that I clicked on were just passing mentions (e.g. "Mrs. Zamzow taught young peoples' classes this year at the Baha'i summer school at Geyserville") rather than significant coverage (see WP:SIGCOV), but I didn't go through all of them. Could you just briefly list here a few that cover the school in more detail than just passing mentions? — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still collecting and I've not reviewed them but they mark the history of events from founding through additional buildings through when it was bought out by the government and the Baha'is opened another site at the present site and the beginning of events there. Some of the newspaper articles trace more of the history as such if I remember right. The point is that significant coverage includes actual events, actual people attending, actual programs of classes given, some financial events like budgets for building improvements, etc., not just "it was there". I have a collection of over 500 newspaper articles to sift through for various kinds of coverage. And of course when actually used these would be fleshed out citations. Smkolins (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is more than a brief statement that "program A was held at school X" or "teacher B taught at school X", which is all that I have seen so far from those links. The coverage needs to be about the school in detail. Until anyone can explicitly provide such sources, there is no guideline-based reason to keep the article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a body of over 500 articles has much to say but there are some articles that are larger and profile the school in some depth as well as markers of major transitions. I've added a section in an attempt to sift through the more than 500 articles for larger ones. I'm also aware of a seperate collection I'll be reviewing/collecting next. Smkolins (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NSCHOOL with significant coverage in local news sources (ideally there would be other types of sources, but this is probably enough), e.g.

— MarkH₂₁^talk 12:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow the improvements promised in the above discussion to materialise.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:34, 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. Daniel (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaquille Walker[edit]

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

This is the hardest nomination I have ever made. I want Walker to be notable. I even created the article. However the plain fact that has become evident to me is that his level of competition is not high enough to count toward notability, and the articles published in newspapers that considered his college to be within their natural circulation area are just not enough to show notability without passing the sports notability criteria. Wikipedia requires a long lasting permanence of notability, that was not obtained by Walker. Yes, I know he was almost at the level of qualifying for the olympics, but he didn't qualify, so he does not actually meet notability criteria. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't the win at the Universade make him notable? It's an international competition. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is below the level of the top international competition. Although winning at such a level is more likely than competing at such a level to make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning an athletics Universiade gold medal is a notable achievement, as the global level competition for students. This title is actually more prestigious and notable than the World Junior or Youth titles, which are listed under point 4 of track notability criteria. I would class the Universiade under point 2 of those criteria ("Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic Games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields"). SFB 14:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. USATF is a valid source. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Hygiene Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY and WP:GNG and no evidence of notability. Cupper52 (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the link to Sourcewatch on Air Hygiene Foundation tells a story of this organisation being a torch-bearer for workers who were being killed by inhaling silica dust, and other lung-disease-causing inhalations. They have since evolved into a consultant organisation providing training. The article lacks content, unfortunately. As per nom, Fails WP:NCOMPANY and WP:GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:32, 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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Systems Technology Centre[edit]

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

Promotion of defunct non-notable organization; at minimum, upmerge with Cooperative Research Centre. fgnievinski (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or alternatively Merge or redirect to Cooperative Research Centre. This is an obvious alternative to deletion, I'm not sure why this had to come to AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am comfortable with keeping if that is the consensus, my comment above was that there is no reason why deletion is the only appropriate option. Deus et lex (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don’t really see any good rationale for deletion. How is a national research centre in such a key area not notable? Mccapra (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like some discussion about why this should not be kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in line with Mccapras comments above JW 1961 Talk 14:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I endorse the comments by Mccapras. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:31, 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. Withdrawn by the nominator (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tortoise Media[edit]

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

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC) ~~News website that does not meet notability thresholds- independent sources consist of WP:ROUTINE coverage of the website's launch. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The coverage currently on the page [85][86] looks promising to me; it has enough detail to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH, which is the appropriate guidance on what is and isn't too routine to count (WP:ROUTINE is for events). I'm therefore leaning toward a keep. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am looking at WP:NMEDIA and seeing it is (too soon). (No awards, etc.) Nonetheless, a lot of other media outlets and journalists are following this. Their modality is the Think In, which attracts participation. Some criticism was found of their sponsorship by BP, a known fossil fuel organisation. While it looks WP:TOOSOON, my creative sense is that this the future of media and news online in Europe, if not worldwide. BBC News director and Times editor James Harding is a definite heavyweight in the field of news media. Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG/WP:NPERIODICAL. Coverage includes: [87], [88], [89], [90]. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:07, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Mendez[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. A sergeant who received a single Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, if his Navy Cross does get upgraded to MoH page can be recreated.Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Give me a break, Mendez saved the life of his platoon commander, Lieutenant Ronald D. Castille, who in the future became the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania. U.S. Senator Charles Schumer has recommended that Mendez' award be upgraded to the Medal of Honor, the United States highest military decoration. The St. George Post Office in Staten Island was renamed and is now known as the "Sergeant Angel Mendez Post Office." and you're telling me he is not notable? Tony the Marine (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's not notable. Read WP:NOTINHERITED, saving someone notable doesn't confer notability. The upgrade request was filed in 2003, so it seems very unlikely that it will happen. Having a Post Office named after you doesn't establish notability, we have soldiers who had U.S. Navy ships named after them fail notability and be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The namesakes of USN ships who have been redirected are entirely different as those soldiers lacked significant coverage and often their existence could only be sourced to one source, which is not the case here. Kges1901 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, some had more than one source, but never amounted to SIGCOV in multiple RS, just like Mendez. Mztourist (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact me if you have some direction to follow or the filing of Angels upgrade submission. If you have some type of official document regarding angel's up grade it would serve as great help to us all. Again, I can't express how important a formal document at this point would help. Please contact me on face book. My name is Michael Sulsona. You can also get in touch with me through the Stephen Siller Foundation. I am a Vietnam vet myself, Marine and lost both legs in comat and currently working as a service officer. Thanks! 100.33.151.9 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete saving someone notable does not make someone notable. A reccomendation for an upgrade is not an upgrade, he does not meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meeting WP:GNG is coverage, not achievement based, and Mendez passes the coverage bar with significant coverage in multiple independent RS newspapers. He is the subject of a front-page story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, a large-circulation major city newspaper, and numerous news articles such as [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]. Kges1901 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First source incorrectly states he was awarded the Medal of Honor; 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th sources are all Staten Island News, i.e. his local newspaper where he is obviously a local hero. The story in the Philadelphia Inquirer is just a short piece about the (unsuccessful) attempt to upgrade his Navy Cross, so no that's not SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The correctness of the first source is irrelevant as the quoted family member may have been misinformed, but either way it still demonstrates coverage. The Staten Island news coverage cannot simply be discounted as it shows that Mendez receives coverage over a long period of time despite the failure of the MoH upgrade effort. It is ridiculous to claim that a front page news story is 'short' as it is one of the longest stories by word count in the newspaper that day, and the story is about him as it contains biographical information, not simply the effort to upgrade his Navy Cross. Again, the success or failure of an upgrade attempt is irrelevant as there is still significant coverage of Mendez either way. All three newspapers are each RS and these articles are focused on Mendez himself so they are by definition multiple RS. Kges1901 (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First source must be ignored due to fundamental error, so there are two sources, three stories in his local paper and one in the Philadelphia Inquirer, not SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was awarded the Medal of Honor and his family accepted his Medal of Honor on Memorial Day 2008 in San Juan Puerto Rico. The source is here Newspress Fort Myers, May 15, 2008. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He did not receive the Medal of Honor. Look at www.cmohs.org, he's not listed there. Your source is wrong. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the way I read the article, the way it's written it sounded / read like it was a done deal. My vote is still keep because he's received significant coverage. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article was completely wrong. What SIGCOV in what RS? Mztourist (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not completely wrong. I added and removed incorrect information because of how the resource stated the information. The 50th anniversary of his death was honored by the community in a ceremony. A school was renamed in his honor. Those two sources have been added for you to now come along and disparage. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable based on wp:soldier. Peter303x (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If an individual has a US federal building named after him, he is notable, end of the Notability argument. This was the case with this soldier.^[1] ("On January 03, 2012, President Barack Obama signed into law the designation of this post office in Honor of Sergeant Mendez.") Naming of federal buildings, certainly Post Offices, is done with approval and recommendation of US Congress. Lack of notability is not a valid delete argument here. Mercy11 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A post office? I'd understand your argument with something like a proper federal office building, but a post office? Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come back the day you have a PO named after you and we can discuss that further. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A US Post Office named after him gives him notability. United States Post Offices are established by the United States Congress as written in the United States Constitution.^[2] So a United States Post Office is not just some insignificant building, like say a corner store might be.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE/Keep - appears to meet the wiki standard for general notoriety — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klgeels (talk • contribs) 02:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above; how many buildings have to be named after you before you become "notable"? WP:SOLDIER is an essay, and not a guideline. jp×g 17:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's about having SIGCOV in multiple RS, not one Post Office named after him. Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion. Article definitely meets WP:GNG. Enough on the article to pass WP:SOLDIER too. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, User:CAVETOWNFAN has been on WP for 1 day and comes to this discussion... Mztourist (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO: Navy Cross, US post office, and a high school combined meet well-known and significant award or honor, and there are sufficient RSs to document a verifiable biography, with significant coverage by Philadelphia Inquirer, Fort Myers News-Press, SILive.com. Schazjmd (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per notability wp:soldier. Maybe WP:GNG: reliable and significant coverage too. I do think the article needs sections heavily trimming or rewriting as sections seem to read like a eulogy, perhaps by someone with a sentimental agenda to push, but the subject is noteworthy.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG. Sources are good. BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 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 keep. — The Earwig ^talk 06:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cozi[edit]

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

Promotional article with a GNG sourcing tag since 2017. Coverage is either transactions or passing mentions; the CNN link is a very short and insubstantial piece. No evidence that this meets WP:GNG. FalconK (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Broida, Rick (2011-07-26). "Best app you've never tried: Cozi Family Organizer". CNET. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  The review includes criticism of Cozi:
  My one and only complain is with the calendar, which offers only a scrolling day-by-day view. It works well enough, but I'd really like some list-view options that would show only upcoming events--and allow me to filter them by person. A month view would be nice, too.
2. Turner, Amy-Mae (2018-12-08). "Run your family life, all from one app? Cozi promises you can". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  The review includes criticism and praise of Cozi:
  The online journal isn't the prettiest looking service, but it's the content your family and friends are going to be interested in, and Cozi certainly delivers the functionality that shares it.
3. Duffy, Jill (2014-05-16). "Cozi". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  The review includes criticism of Cozi:
  While Cozi offers a few desirable features and services, it doesn't implement any of them well. Its worst offense is that every family member uses the same password to log into the system. Cozi recognizes all the email addresses of family members as user names, but one password is reused for all of them. From a security standpoint, that one reason is enough to not use Cozi. ... The Web app also skips large swathes of family management entirely. For example, it doesn't contain much in terms of document management, nor any financial planning and monitoring tools. The amount of information you can add about each family member is extremely limited as well.
4. "Site of the Week: Cozi". PCMag. 2007-08-10. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cozi to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. jp×g 06:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this needed to be relisted. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. WP:GNG are met.Less Unless (talk) 13:35, 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 no consensus verging on keep. Daniel (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toggl Track[edit]

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

Promotional article about some time tracking software that relies on passing mentions and reviews for sourcing. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. FalconK (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hough, Brenda (2018). Crash Course in Time Management for Library Staff. Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-4408-5067-7. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  The book has a detailed review of Toggl. The book has a "Pros" section and "Cons" section. From the "Cons" section:
  Cons:
  - Easy to forget to "start" and "stop" the timer when you begin or quit working on a task.
  - Must have a device with you (either your desktop or smartphone) in order to track (or else you need to remember to manually enter time for offline tasks once you are back online). This can be a challenge for some library staff. [quote from a library staff member]
  - If you don't want to track your time on an ongoing basis, it may not be worth the time required to set up projects and complete other fine-tuning of the tool.
2. Duffy, Jill (2020-12-16). "Toggl Track Review: The free tier may be all many users need". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
  The review has a "Pros" section and "Cons" section. The review notes:
  Toggl Track, formerly just Toggl, is an intuitive time-tracking app with a generous free tier of service. You can get more advanced features, many of which benefit teams, if you pay for a Starter or Premium account. Toggl Track has desktop apps and a browser plug-in, as well as mobile apps for tracking time on the go or in meetings. It's an Editors' Choice time tracking service for freelancers and micro businesses because they can get so much out of it for free. It works well for teams, too, as long as they're looking for an app that specifically tracks time spent working, without offering invoicing, expensing, or employee-monitoring services.
3. Joseph, Cliff. "Toggl. Self employed? Track your free time". MacLife. Retrieved 2021-01-04 – via PressReader.
4. Tsukayama, Hayley (2017-01-23). "App reviews: Blackbox, Toggl confound and create order". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04 – via The Denver Post.
5. Pau, Aivar (2017-08-09). "Idufirma Toggl lõi oma värbamisettevõtte". Postimees (in Ewe). Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
6. Waddilove, Roland (2013-07-30). "How to use Toggl". PC Advisor. Archived from the original on 2019-11-07. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Toggl to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that the article is semi-promotional, but sourcing appears to meet WP:GNG. Could use a minor cleanup. Redoryxx (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a personal opinion but those sources are not providing significant and detailed coverage in my opinion. Seems WP:MILL to me. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems more like an advertisement, but coverage in plenty of independent sources makes it pass WP:SIGCOV. 78.36.163.169 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple references that meet the criteria for establishing notability - reliable sources containing Independent content and in-depth information. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:01, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Yakubova (educator)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, not independently or otherwise notable, no substansial RS coverage. Nothing can be done to improve the article at this point. I can't even find a reliable source for the date of death claimed (though I doubt this is a BLP), since the only two sources in the article predate the claimed date of death. This article will be stuck with the problem tags forever it is remains, and there is nothing that can be done about that. I've searched high and low for verification, linked to the archived version of the website about her, found the pdf with the (very short) O'zME entry about her, but none of that can change the fact that she just doesn't make the cut. Media coverage is abysmal (the media coverage of the actress with the same name should not be confused with hers to counted toward it), fails GNG, meeting ANYBIO criteria for "likely" notablity is already a stretch (Order of Lenin and O'zME isn't a litmus test for notability, thank g-d), and none of that can compensate for overall lack of media coverage. Frankly I'm annoyed that this article was ever made, that time would have been much better spent writing an missing despratly article of any one of the exponentially more notable Uzbek people without articles on English Wikipedia that have a plethora of media coverage and verifable biographical information in reliable sources. Sorry, but no Wikipedia article should be dependent on O'zME (infamous for typos and mistakes) and a namesake website, and if that's the best you can do, it must go.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)*[reply]

Keep, as creator: Poor writing is not in an of itself grounds for deletion, as articles can be cleaned up. To me, she meets the notability threshhold due to the entry in the National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan. Now: that being said, I accepted the entry on faith when I created the article (there was an Uzbek-language article which sourced to it.) If that is in fact incorrect then I withdraw the objection, but I'd like evidence that she's not in the national encyclopedia. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the O'zME is not a litmus test for notability. It is filled with many entries of less-than-notable people whose media coverage outside the encyclopedia is scant to nonexistant and other basic biographical information unknown. She is indeed in O'zME, but that alone is no grounds for a keep. There are plenty of other short, niche articles there that do not meet English Wikipedia notability requirements.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PlanespotterA320:, @Justarandomamerican: Can you elaborate, please, as to why the Encyclopedia is not considered an acceptable source? Specifically, what are its standards for inclusion? Because it seems to me that if it's a national publication, that should be sufficient to establish notability. The lack of online sources is not in and of itself enough to claim lack of notability.

I'm not trying to be tendentious, but I think this is something that needs to be stated explicitly, because as it stands it seems to a casual observer (such as I am) that this encyclopedia does have a pedigree which makes it sufficient to establish notability. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- It is acceptable to cite O'zME in a bibliography, but an article needs more secondary sources than just that. Most biographies in O'zME are not available on English Wikipedia and do not meet any of the general notability requirements ie, significant coverage in secondary sources. One encyclopedia article doesn't cut it. It has never been claimed or established that O'zME alone is acceptable for claiming notability, and there is no reasonable way for a casual observer to infer that (considering how many O'zME articles are on niche subjects that lack external coverage and fail GNG).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, fails Wikipedia:Notability, O'zME is not an ultimate test of notability. Kind regards, Justarandomamerican (talk) Also, have a nice day! 19:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She passes WP:ANYBIO criteria #3: The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. (Only one criteria, not all three need to be met for ANYBIO.) The article can be improved, but it should not be deleted on the grounds of the writing, formatting or current state of the sourcing. AfD is not clean up WP:NOTCLEANUP. Netherzone (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: The formatting issues are not exclusive reasons for deletion (I just happened to be really annoyed by lack of effort into article). Being sloppy is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for producing an article that is largely dependent on O'zME and cannot sustain a sufficient bibliography, which no article should be. Keep in mind that O'zME is far more inclusive of people of low notability that other counterpart encyclopedias. Furthermore, WP:ANYBIO criteria are "likely" for notability, not guaranteed, and we have already established that most of the niche biographies in O'zME do not meet notability requirements.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: ah WP:ANYBIO is what I was looking for yesterday but couldn't find; thanks for that.

For what it's worth, I, too, am not pleased by the formatting issues that were introduced into the article after it was created. But again, they can be cleaned up.

Anyhow, I don't see anything in the discussion which changes my keep vote from earlier. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting issues have been addressed, but that doesn't change that fact that this is a bad article lacking RS on a non-notable person with scant secondary source mentions. Her biography in O'zME that is differed to for notability (as if hastily-assembled O'zME should have the same weight as other encyclopedias higher notability standards/only include the absolutely most known people of a nation) is a stub. Most of the information in the article comes from the namesake website that is now a dead link. Not good. We need RS coverage - not O'zME, not a sketchy website, or other marginal source to base an article on. I've worked with O'zME, and no offense to Uzbekistan, but it SUCKS. It is filled with typos, errors, and obscure non-notable people with no other media coverage (you are literally speaking to an admin of uzbek wikipedia where O'zME is the #1 source). We do NOT want having an O'zME entry to become automatic inclusion criteria here, it would be a nightmare.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless there is consensus that the national biographical encyclopedia is unreliable or indiscriminate, then the article passes WP:ANYBIO. Additionally, the Order of Lenin article states that it was "the highest civilian decoration bestowed by the Soviet Union". As the subject is deceased, there seems to be no valid deletion argument raised. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the Order of Lenin award, that means she also meets criteria #1 of ANYBIO. Netherzone (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict:@Netherzone: 1. Order of Lenin is NOT the highest Civilian decoration bestowed by the Soviet Union (that's Hero of Socialist Labour), and she only received one. One Order of Lenin is not, should not, and will NEVER be a litmus test/guarantee of notability. WP:ANYBIO is still only a test for "likely" notability, a lack of sufficient sourcing per WP:GNG renders that a fail. 2. O'zME is not exactly the most reliable of sources (there are plenty of mistakes in it, since it is a hastily edited version of O'zSE) and it should NOT be the only secondary source of an article under any circumstance. This article still fails GNG and the basic three best sources test.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have exhaustively searched in offline libraries in the relevant country from the 1950s to date, as well as checking all print newspaper coverage over the same period (in which case you should state so clearly), then at best you are stating that the article needs improvement (a contention with which I will not argue). Espresso Addict (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PlanespotterA320, thank you for your comment. Just so you know, these are not my opinions but rather they are Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Our notability criteria for ANYBIO are: 1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. (She has received a well known or signficant award or honor - it does not say that she has to have received the highest award/honor in the land.) 2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. (Seems like she met this as well based on the article.) 3) The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. (She has an entry in such a publication.) So although a person only needs to meet one criteria to pass, it seems she has met all three, or at the very least two. Therefore I stand by my !vote that the article should be retained in the encyclopedia. There is additional sourcing out there which could be added to the article, if you do a search on Google Books, you will find a lot. I'm surprised you didn't discover that when you did your WP:BEFORE search before nominating. Netherzone (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANYBIO clearly says that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." not that they ARE notable. Yes, she received the Order of Lenin, that that's not much at all - nearly half a million awarded it, and vast majority of single recipients of it are not notable and do not and will not have Wikipedia articles. 2. Her contributions to her field are NOT a "widely recognized contribution that is apart of enduring historical record". She remains quite an obscure person, and is by no means a national teaching icon on par with Hamza Hakimzade - she was just simply one of THOUSANDS of Soviet teachers (among other workers) who received a medal and a little bit of recognition for going an extra step. She did not fundamentally change the field at all. 3. Her entry in O'zME, a cumulative encyclopedia of almost every person that got even the least notable medals (many that we don't even have articles for) in Uzbekistan should not be a determining factor at all. If she were in the Great Soviet encyclopedia that would be different, but a mega-encyclopedia of literally every long-forgotten local celebrity (many of whom are long dead but obituaries cannot be found for) of a country of ~30 million people doesn't cut it. 4. Yeah, she has a few passing mentions in other medias (not to be confused with the many, more in-depth media coverage of the ACTRESS, not TEACHER, by the same name). Soviet newspapers list her in recipients of the Order of Lenin in award announcements. God save us from giving every single one of those people a Wikipedia article! Any search for her name in any language yields a preponderance of results about the actress by the same name, NOT her. Keep in mind that transclusions/mirror sites of various Wikipedias don't get be to counted as separate sources. The complete lack of post O'zME secondary media coverage - like an obituary in tashkentpamyat or any one of the many Uzbek newspapers online that could have published an obituary for her is a telling sign. If she was as notable as you think she is, like the actress by the name name she is often confused with, there would be plenty of obitaries, memorials, etc. But at this point the only thing we have to prove that this isn't a BLP is a shitty namesake website that no longer exists. I certainly hope we don't plan on creating articles for everyone in O'zMe born in the 1930's that don't have obitaries anywhere serious, because the last thing Wikipedia needs is a bunch of poorly written-machine translated low-notability articles stuck in limbo as "possible" BLPs but death date unknown. Sorry, but people with far more media coverage have gotten their articles deleted for lack of notability, and the warped precedent you're trying to create (likely out of poor understanding of Soviet awards and Uzbek media) can set a precedent for allowing any "average Ivan" with a popular medal and entry in a niche encyclopedia and not even a verifiable death date to get a Wikipedia article and be a "kinda" BLP. The last thing we need at Wikipedia is to allow more articles about people with unknown death dates / people not known enough to get an obitary. No obituary, not many secondary sources, not a "first" (ex, first Uzbek woman teacher), no GNG? Sorry, but not notable, not matter how much puffery one can write to trump up perceived importance. Please try to improve Wikipedia by adding articles about people will not have to have improvement-needed tags in perpetuity--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong Delete as nominator - nothing can be done to improve the article at this point. I can't even find a reliable source for the date of death claimed (though I doubt this is a BLP), since the only two sources in the article predate the claimed date of death. This article will be stuck with the problem tags forever it is remains, and there is nothing that can be done about that. I've searched high and low for verification, linked to the archived version of the website about her, found the pdf with the (very short) O'zME entry about her, but none of that can change the fact that she just doesn't make the cut. Media coverage is abysmal (the media coverage of the actress with the same name should not be confused with hers to counted toward it), fails GNG, meeting ANYBIO criteria for "likely" notablity is already a stretch (Order of Lenin and O'zME isn't a litmus test for notability, thank g-d), and none of that can compensate for overall lack of media coverage. Frankly I'm annoyed that this article was ever made, that time would have been much better spent writing an missing despratly article of any one of the exponentially more notable Uzbek people without articles on English Wikipedia that have a plethora of media coverage and verifable biographical information in reliable sources. Sorry, but no Wikipedia article should be dependent on O'zME (infamous for typos and mistakes) and a namesake website, and if that's the best you can do, it must go.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PlanespotterA320: You have already !voted with your nomination. Why are you !voting a second time? You should strike your second !vote. It is fine to add comments, but not to double !vote in deletion discussions to prove your point. Please, let's adhere to our policies and guidelines. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT remove my comments from an Afd again, PlanespotterA320, that is considered disruptive editing. Instead, if you want to change your own comments, strike-out your old text and modify it with the new. These discussion must be kept intact. Please do not do that again. Netherzone (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STOP! I just asked you NOT to modify my comments, and I see that you have struck my comments. Do nor do that again, as it is considered disruptive editing. Please change my comments back to what they were immediately! They should not be struck. Netherzone (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove your latest comments, I merely struck through a closed issue (intending to just close mine, but missing a / in the closer). If it means that much to you that , you could have added a / second <s> end of my paragraph (that I added to close the strikethrough but failed due to the missing / type) instead of flipping out, so please calm the f*&% down.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my comment with this Diff: [96] Do not do that again. Netherzone (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for removing that comment (and mine) for an issue I thought was closed (it seemed like you wanted it removed). I have not attempted to delete it again. There is no need to flip out over a goddamn strikethrough. You are a strong Wikipedian. If seeing the entire section struckthrough was too much, you are more than capable of editing the wikitext and adding the missing dash.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The deletion rationale has been greatly expanded after the comments by myself and others. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not a good look, just to confirm, nomination rationale was originally just the first sentence (see here), a day later the nominator inserted an extra 7 sentences (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to expand my commentary on the issue and it was obviously nessesary to rebutt claims of O'zME being a sign of notability (since it REALLY isn't, as anyone that's read it can tell you considering it has so many biographies of people with no other significant media coverage).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

which nominators do during the discussion, not by enhancing their original rationale. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO as has an entry in National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly reiterated that National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan has a very, very, very, low bar for inclusion not on par with general notability and WP:ANYBIO general likelyhood for notability conditions does not trump failing WP:GNG. Coverage outside O'zME is minimal to nonexistant, as with that of hundreds to thousands of other people included in the encyclopedia. Frankly O'zME should be a deprecated source considering how many errors are in it (if it's worth including in the wiki, other sources should be able to be found)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, readers of this afd know your opinion, also, could you please explain where you get "with that of hundreds to thousands of other people included in the encyclopedia." as the National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan article states that the entire encyclopedea contains 50 thousand articles, and finally, you do not need to respond to everybody who disagrees with you, see leave the horse alone. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC) - oops, concede may well be "thousands" of biographies there, with a Uzbek pop. of 30 million why would this be an issue given the 1.7million wikibio articles. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not think she passes ANYBIO#3 ("The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication") because National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan is much weaker in term of defining notability than Dictionary of National Biography. Google searches about her in English and Russian (Russian page is also under AfD) find nothing. She is notable for what, exactly? There is no answer. Why did she receive her awards? Simply saying "there was such school teacher" is not an encyclopedic content. There is no substantial sourced information about this person. My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Quoting from the nom's profile, ..Few or no google results in English DOES NOT EQUAL non-notable topic! By this I require a valid reason as to why the National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan is not a RS! Which this must likely be there in local medias. Maybe those that look at it weaker, aren't seeing it in the outsiders perspectives but rather in their own. And so I try look at it in Wikipedia's thing and found it meeting criteria ANYBIO. Also 'Wikipedia is a work in progress'. Em-em ^talk 08:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I said "Few or no google results in English DOES NOT EQUAL non-notable topic". NOT "Few or no google results in ANY LANGUAGE in multiple writing systems = Notable". As an administrator on Uzbek Wikipedia I have become VERY familiar with the contents of O'zME and can personally attest that is contains a plethora a niche/non-notable biographies, typos, and factual mistakes. For those of you that are somehow not aware, O'zME is a hastily composed re-do of O'zSE, the Uzbek Soviet Encyclopedia (more than half the content is directly copied from O'zSE), with a few changes in abbreviations and content, but otherwise many articles are identical. Unless we are also going to call O'zSE an RS and sufficient for ANYBIO (which is very doubtful), we have no reason to do the same for the 2000-2005 edition of O'zME so hastily based on and copied from it. As for search results about the person - I have gone above and beyond to find sources besides the O'zME article and namesake website that is now dead, having conducted searches in both Russian and Uzbek, cyrillic and roman alphabets. If she were actually as notable as anyone voting keep thinks she is, I should have been able to find an obituary to use as a source for the death date at the very least, and certainly much more - but instead I've just found a few passing mentions at best and a plethora of media coverage about the actress with the same name. That doesn't cut it. We can't allow people to have Wikipedia articles about them that are completely dependent on sketchy encyclopedias and cannot be complemented with additional, more reliable, sources. Even if O'zME was an acceptable source, her article in O'zME is VERY short, and our only other source is a questionable namesake website of unclear authorship. There just simply isn't RS sourcing for the article's claims.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PlanespotterA320, with all due respect, these efforts to contradict every opinion that differs from yours with a wall of text are getting a little close to WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion process. Netherzone (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the Order of Lenin not make her notable? Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not, just as having an entry in National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: the Order of Lenin is a notable award - the highest civilian decoration bestowed by the Soviet Union, and indeed contributes towards notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is NOT the highest civilian award in the Soviet Union, and you should know that by now considering I have already told you it is Hero of Socialist Labour, NOT the Order of Lenin that is the highest Soviet award. And even then, most HSL are hardly notable and quite obscure, having received the title for mundane things and lacked decent RS media coverage. Either way, being a recipient of the Order of Lenin is no guarantee or determinate of notability at all - tens of thousands of people received it, most of whom will never have Wikipedia articles. And I STILL want a list of the three best RS for this topic - can that test, the ultimate test of notability - be passed? Certainly seems like it can't.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. More than 400 thousand people in the USSR receive this order. A page about everyone? My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:ANYBIO - 1. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.", it does not say "the highest award" no matter how may times editors state it in afds; note, i am not saying that the ~~HSL~~ OL by itself is necessarily enough for anybio just that the emphasis on having to obtain the highest award may be misplaced. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. Pumpsdups (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. The Order of Lenin was awarded to literally hundreds of thousands of people. --Tataral (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, the National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan is national biographical dictionary and is a reasonable source for WP:BIO purposes. Second, other sources, in Russian, do exist, although they don't allow full preview in GBooks (which is not surprising). E.g. this book[97] contains a fairly detailed discussion about Yakubova, in several places. There are briefer mentions as well, e.g. [98][99][100][101] (Moreover, in this last source, the mention of Yakubova apparently concerns some other article about her, by B. Volkov "To work with full dedication".) The Order of Lenin was the highest civilian decoration in the USSR. The Hero of Socialist Labor was a rank/title, which involved receiving two decorations, the Order of Lenin and a Gold Star Medal. Thus, as an award, the Hero of Socialist Labor was indeed higher. But the Order of Lenin was still a huge deal and extremely prestigious. However, of more note is Yakubova's title of People's Teacher of the USSR. That was the highest honorary title awarded by the state to teachers and it was quite rare. Only 110 people[102] ever received this honor, from its establishment in 1977 to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. In terms of prestige the title was roughly comparable to People's Artist of the USSR, only the title of People's Teacher of the USSR was more rare. In fact, there would certainly be articles about Yakubova in the regional press in 1986 at the time this title was awarded, and they still exist somewhere in paper form in the Uzbek libraries. Nsk92 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are again giving undue weight to the Order of Lenin as a notability qualifier - It was awarded hundreds of thousands of times to numerous obscure people for hardly notable things ranging from being an above-average teacher to exceeding quota of sunflower seeds grown (yes, people really did get the Order of Lenin for that). We cannot feasibly give every Ivan and Irina that got it an article. As for press coverage, I happen to have access to 1986 Sovet Uzbekistoni newspaper archives via newspaperarchive.com, and various keyword searches of OCR text yeilded nothing except info about the actress of the same name. As for the title of people's teacher somehow being a qualifier, it's not. There is a very good reason there are thousands of articles about PAU in Russian Wikipedia (many of which also in enwiki) but Yakubova is the only People's Teacher with an article in enwiki - People's (job) itself is not a qualifier for notability, only the prestige that comes with having done what it takes to get the award (ex, be a famous musician, actress, artist with lots of media coverage) is. Since teachers are hardly celebreties, those awarded People's teacher don't get articles. There is no precedent for People's Teacher being a qualifier for notability (currently her article is the only one we have), and setting such precedent would be very problematic to put it mildly by allowing creation of dozens of articles about people with next to no information available as "forever stubs", and unless you intend to help create articles for the rest of that list, Yakubova's article will remain a stand-alone. The book previews you linked to were mostly passing mentions and low-information content (ex, recollections of attending school with her, etc), none of which can be used to address the fact that this article will remain an "eternal stub" - still no RS for date of death, no obituary, no find a grave, no nothing.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nsk92. "Article will remain a stand-alone", this "article is the only one we have"... I hope, PlanespotterA320, that you are aware of the circularity of your reasoning yourself... See also WP:NODEADLINE. --Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 04:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion. The article isn't adequately referenced but it meets standards as it has a source that meets WP:GNG. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward delete per PlanespotterA320's argument, although I rather disagree with the aggressiveness used (e.g. We cannot feasibly give every Ivan and Irina that got it an article, which seemed a little culturally-insensitive). I'm strongly opposed to expanding the criteria that confer "inherent notability", and the award she received certainly does not meet it with how many recipients it had. Normally I would be more forgiving toward an article topic from a non-English-speaking country, but given what Planespotter has shown with regards to the utter lack of coverage outside of an apparent non-notable single event (media and O'zME appear limited to the OL award, not so much on the contributions that merited it or on her later work), I'd be inclined to give more weight to the source evaluation of an Uzbek wiki admin. I would also say rarity of an award is necessary but not sufficient for inherent notability, and the opposite would be disqualifying. Nsk92, your 6th link just says "No results in this book for Марьям Якубова "народный учитель" -артистка", do you have a working link? Also, in my opinion, the National Encyclopedia criterion is more intended for historical figures who would not have accessible contemporary media coverage but are notable enough to endure in the national conscience for centuries. Almanac-style editions containing contemporary people shouldn't be considered equivalent. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, that GBooks link is working for me. Try this one:[103]. If it doesn't work, go to the search text window at that link (you'll see something like & quot;КПСС Марьям Якубовой& quot; there) and press enter there. Then the snippet view should become visible. Nsk92 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One should not use "артистка" (actress) in search because it leads to another person with the same name, Maryam Yakubova (actress) (she is notable), not to subject of this page. Worse, I checked this Uzbek encyclopedia and did not find entry for "ЁҚУБОВА Марям". Is it correct spelling? Any Google translation and what it say? My very best wishes (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Uzbek spelling is correct but I also believe in the Uzbek alphabet the order of letters is different and K occurs in the end. The entries for both Maryam Yakubovas (the educator and the actress) are at the end of the pdf file, on p. 71. Nsk92 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So, on page 71 it tells the following (Google translation): "YaKUBOVA Maryam (December 5, 1931, Ur-Ganch) - People's Teacher (1986). Honored Teacher of Uzbekistan (1978). People's Scientist of Uzbekistan (1958). Хоразмпед. intiningfizi-kamat, phthinitugatgan (1952). From 1952 he was a teacher of physics at the 1st school in Urgench. From 1958 to 1962 he was a teacher in Urgench. Head of the Department of Public Education, director of the boarding school in Urgench in 1962-92. Or. The boarding school under his leadership was one of the few in the country that did not provide modern education."

This is all we know about her. I am certain this page should be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anantbodh Chaitanya[edit]

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

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

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

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Has passing mentions and two short interviews [104][105] about a cultural promotion in Lithuania he was associated with. No sources indicating that he's a notable spiritual teacher or author. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NARTIST as well as WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable media. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t delete his Wikipedia page, I learned lots of him through this page. Sat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:2781:32E5:892C:3224:34ED:A8B6 (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This page is quite informative I have been following him since a long time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:96F:FA2F:A89A:3B6A:E7F0:2979 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You can continue reading about him from his website. Not everyone can have an article on Wikipedia. See the criteria for having a wikipedia article on WP:BIO Walrus Ji (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only passing mentions in some independent media. No wide coverage found.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly keep this article on Wikipedia. Anantbodh Chaitanya is a notable person. He is a Prominent disciple of Acharya Mahamandaleshwar of Mahanirvani Akhara Swami Vishwadevanand Puri. He belongs to an Authauntic Monk Tradition of India. He is a founder trustee of Drishti Foundation affiliated with United Nations. In Malta he spoke on Frux channel on Mudras you can see here interview.^[1]. In Lithuania also some news article mention about him and his works. ^[2]. You already mentioned few articles where he promoting Vedic culture. You can see his published paper also on the internet about Ancient Hindu Based Education System.<ref>https://www.academia.edu/6775974/Ancient_Hindu_Based_Education_System<ref>. There are a lot of articles what mentions about him on the internet. Thanks. Deimantas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deimantas007 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deimantas007, the issue here is that this person has not done anything remarkable to have an article. You can read the criteria here on the link WP:BIO. Please read my above comment. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think there is significant coverage on this person. Although it's well written you should consider moving it to a draft and improving on sources etc UpcomingPurse^TalkToMe 17:38, 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Walters[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Received one Silver Star. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Involvement in actions leading to capture of Jessica Lynch is pure WP:1E. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he was a good soldier but not notable enough for inclusion here. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the criteria cited above. Might consider a merge into something about Jessica Lynch, but not notable on his own. Intothat darkness 21:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly doesn't meet SOLDIER (not by rank or command, and the Silver Star is the third highest valour decoration), and a BEFORE search doesn't indicate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources of Walters' life outside this incident. The best source appears to be the Texan Plainview Herald web article from AP here, but other than a brief mention of his service in the First Gulf War and his family, there is little about the rest of his life outside this incident. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability standards. Jenyire2 (talk) 07:28, 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. I don't find the keep rationales persuasive - appearing in a documentary does not indicate notability. Having documentaries about you specifically is a different matter, but isn't what appears to have happened. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Siddiqui[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Coverage is of Beam, not of her; little to no coverage in WP:RS and the intent and tone of this page are promotional. FalconK (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject does not meet WP:GNG. The legitimate sources found or already cited in the article do not amount to the required support for notability. Some forensics:

We have simple listings of events, lectures, etc, such as this, this, this or this; a report about the Thiel Fellowship that provided Siddiqui with a grant but not about Siddiqui; a listing in another article about the Thiel again; a link to her own website; a New York Times article about college drop-outs "pursuing their dreams" that name-drops Siddiqui once; nothing in the cited Times of India; passing mentions in the books Valley of the Gods: A Silicon Valley Story and Becoming a Social Entrepreneur: Starting Out, Scaling Up and Staying True; and so on. We could graciously call this a case of WP:TOOSOON and wish that an article will appropriately appear in the near future.

(Still, WP:ENTREPRENEUR turns out to be right once again!) -The Gnome (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the aforestated explanation by user The Gnome. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:BIO, a person is notable if they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor" of which the Thiel Fellowship certainly qualifies. Also, one of the links cited by The Gnome is actually a Stanford University course taught by the subject – it's not a simple lecture listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.33.47.95 (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Giving one lecture or teaching one course at Stanford does not make someone notable. Neither does the Thiel Fellowship - there are a lot of non-notable Thiel fellows, and for all the fanfare it is fundamentally a VC investment. The awards and honours that qualify under that category are things like a Nobel Prize, that are awarded by committees of experts, or national honours. FalconK (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - An award/grant which is given to 20 individuals each year by a business expert and billionaire is notable. The award has been covered in the press numerous and times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.33.47.95 (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The award by itself does not render a subject notable. Otherwise, we'd have an article for each and every recipient. We must "significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources" that work cumulatively towards the support of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update I found more WP:RS and removed some WP:PROMO, so please per WP:HEY take a look at current article. I think it's improved a lot. In particular, I don't know why this in-depth profile of Siddiqui wasn't mentioned in earlier comments. I also found this, this, and this to help establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.33.47.95 (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User 47.33.47.95's only contributions to Wikipedia have been on this page. -The Gnome (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. At the time you posted your comment, I had also contributed to the deletion discussion for the Product Hunt article. Also, friendly reminder that IPs are human too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.33.47.95 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I posted my comment, your contributions amounted to only one, aside from your posts here on this RfC. I'd say this does not change in any significant way my description of your Wikipedia contributions so far. Your denial that there exists any kind of relation to the article's subject is noted and accepted. And I never mentioned anything about IPs as such, let alone deny that they are "human too". -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the subject was featured in two documentaries "Go Against the Flow" and "20 Under 20: Transforming Tomorrow" by CNBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.101.184 (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we see fishing for exceptionality when all we have is groupings: The CNBC documentary is about the Thiel Fellowship and includes in its coverage, en passant, recipients, among whom is our subject; the other documentary, Go Against the Flow, by a director focused on "encouraging women to start their own businesses," contains portraits of more than a dozen females, among whom is our subject, on screen for a few minutes. We still don't have enough. -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards a consensus existing for delete however further analysis of the sourcing vs. WP:N would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the Theil fellowship is nice, it doesn't automatically confer notability. Not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG for this BLP. Kolma8 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable. The subject was profiled in Washington Post, Mashable, CNBC, and her company's product was evaluated in the Surgical Innovation journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:4102:D600:CB6:66E6:DF08:68BD (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This contribution is the first by User 2600:8806:4102:D600:CB6:66E6:DF08:68BD in Wikipedia.

The paper cited is about the product Google Glass and not the article's subject. We've been through this so many times. -The Gnome (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and retarget I don't think deletion is the answer here, but rather the article should be renamed to talk about Remedy and its relationship with Google Glass. That should give us enough information to be able to write a non-trivial article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really Free Band[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I can find no sources to support the band's notability. There is no mention of them in Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, although it's slightly more US-centric. The UK-based crossrhythms has an entry that is remarkably short. The Internet is void of WP:RSes that discuss them. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely zero coverage. SK2242 (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Great band name, but they are not notable. The sourcing isn't worth crap - discogs is not a reliable source, and the other two sites aren't even about the band. The simple name also makes searching difficult, so I searched with the albums and I couldn't find anything that establishes notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; the entire article is pure WP:OR and we have no way of verifying any of it Spiderone 15:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently a former member, Denis Blackham, went on to be a notable audio mastering engineer. That does not affect the lack of RSes for the band, particularly the band does not even get a mention in his article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I’m not sure why the Really Free Band page is being considered for deletion.

Really Free Band were a pioneering Christian Rock band in the United Kingdom, playing at the inaugural Greenbelt festival.

Really Free Band essentially created the genre of Christian Gospel/Rock in the United Kingdom.

Their ministry won hundreds, thousands of souls for the Lord Jesus Christ over the decades.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.243.23.114 (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that while they were a pioneer of the genre in the UK, we cannot find anything that is written about them in reliable sources. If you could provide significant written content, in sources that are reliable like books, magazines, periodicals or newpapers, but not blogs or self-published sources, then we could feel confident that the content that is displayed in the article is correct, but also that the band was worth being written about. For example, there are several contemporaries in California that were written about and many that were not. We try to have articles about the ones that were written about. For instance, Powell, Mark Allan (2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. ISBN 1-56563-679-1. gives Malcolm and Alwyn (and their side projects) a full page of coverage, and they have an article here. Ian Smale and his side projects gets a half page, but also mentions in one other article, while Andy McCarroll gets a quarter page, and neither have an article here. The book does not mention "Really Free" once. So you can see the dilemma. If you could supply the sources that discuss them, that would help us to save their article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added references to the long-established (40 years) British independent Christian record company, Plankton whose founder Simon Law (now Revd Simon Law) was a member of Really Free. In a 1996 interview in the CrossRhythms magazine, he described the influence of his membership of Really Free in founding Plankton. This is reinforced by the warm tribute to Cliff Bergdahl that he wrote recently on the company's web site. Andy Meek (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. They're all passing mentions of the band or incidental. Wikipedia needs significant coverage of the band itself that is supplied in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Malcolm & Alwyn and Ismale played ‘acoustic orientated’ mor Christian songs on what were the main Christian record labels of the time. Hence being recorded in publications such as you cite. Really Free were, in the UK, the first Rock Band playing Christian music and were of no interest to the Christian record labels of the time. Indeed, it was the foresight of individuals such as Simon Law, setting up his own record label (Plankton), to address this that saw the 1st exposure of this sort of music. For this reason you are unlikely to be able to corroborate its significance though mainstream Christian media of the time. We were ignored by it. As a member of the band for several years I can attest to this. Sorry if I’ve not understood the process here but can provide further details as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattthewombat (talk • contribs) 15:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Malcolm & Alwyn do play acoustic and folk while Ian Smale has played a wide variety of music. Wild's music in the early 80s was certainly rock while Wall's solo music was not middle of the road either. The point, however, is not what they play but whether they are or are not recognized (as we write in Canada, or recognised as it would be written in much of the UK). As I pointed out, Cross Rhythms does not have much detail on them, and it does cover rock bands from the era (Bill Mason Band were punk, Giantkiller were rock, and while not British Jerusalem are covered in great detail). If you can find any reliable sources that discuss them, and even one, that would help. It does not have to be online. It can be in-print. It would be even better if it were to state that they were instrumental in helping later Christian rock bands. Without reliable sources, we cannot ascertain the notability of bands or solo performers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have approached the UK Premier Christianity' magazineto see if they can find information regarding Really Free in their archives. The magazine is the successor to 'Buzz' magazine which I recall carried an article about Really Free circa 1980. However, there is no searchable online archive index available so I await their response. I have also put calls out on the Unofficial Greenbelt facebook page and the Musical Gospel Outreach MGO facebook page. Thankyou for your patience. Andy Meek (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to provide Andy a further couple of days to find relevant Reliable Sources to justify notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really Free are listed on the artists roster in an advert for the inaugural Greenbelt festival in the August 1974 edition of Buzz magazine. An image is available here Greenbelt advert 1974.
Really Free were listed in the Christian Music Association (CMA) handbook for 1990 published by Word (UK), noting that CMA was founded in the UK as an arm of the American Gospel Music Association. Handbook images here CMA Handbook 1990 front cover and CMA Handbook 1990 p.288

Andy Meek (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference to a newspaper article which describes the work of Really Free in a school. There is no online archive, but the page can be seen here Ruislip and Northwood Gazette 14 February 1980 and the article in close-up here [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157696301882761&set=p.10157696301882761&type=3 Pupils' Free concert Andy Meek (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for doing that, but it's not really significant coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect with Denis Blackham. (COI alert - I met Denis once and he's a nice guy and very insightful about the audio mastering process such as multi-band compression). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not make sense. Blackham was not a prominent member listed as only having been with them for a year at most, and the problem with the article is lack of reliable sourcing. I'm not sure what is left after the poor-quality content is removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:BAND – Has not been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" - cheers, Epinoia (talk) 01:27, 31 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 03:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farmacina Ltd[edit]

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

A small company that lasted for less than 2 years. I can find nothing to suggest notability. Fails WP:COMPANY. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really an encyclopaedic topic. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. widgethocker (talk) 18:38, 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 speedy keep. There seems to be enough coverage about this museum and it's collection so I am withdrawing my nomination. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this museum ever opened or is still planning to open. Seems like a non-notable failed museum. According to the Online Archive of California it says "The Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum, commonly known as the Hollywood Museum, was planned from 1960 to 1965 but was never built." Sources listed in the article mention another museum, the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures not this one.

I don't think this is related to Debbie Reynolds project either as some of those showed up in my search, I believe this was a separate project in the 1960's. Her organization began in 1972 according to CNN. Although I see some Gbook hits, I can't preview most of them. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or actually this should probably be closed "Speedy Keep", as the deletion nomination provides no argument, no rationale at all, for deletion.

The article should be updated, of course, to explain the project as a proposal which was planned to open in 2017, rather than speaking in Wikipedia's voice that the museum "will" open in 2017, etc. Put a negative tag on the article, fine. But the ~~New York Times~~ Los Angeles Times article alone is a very substantial source establishing a huge, significant project, and there will exist other sources. It's not especially relevant that this is or is not associated with some Debbie Reynolds project (but maybe that project deserves an article too, and should be linked.) And I am myself curious what happened, why it was delayed, whether the project still has huge backers, whether it has $30 or $200 million socked away, etc., or whatever other story can be told. But for AFD purposes, it doesn't matter that the project has not happened (yet) or that it has completely failed and dissolved and returned all the donations (if that is what has happened). The proposal was significant and is supported in sources and "notability is not temporary".

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparta Teapot Museum (which garnered unanimous "Keep" votes) for perspective, about another failed museum project, about which it is fine and good that Wikipedia covers the topic.

JayJay, could you just withdraw this AFD so it can be closed without requiring further participation? It seems to be a misunderstanding that Wikipedia can only cover "winners" not "losers", when in the real world I think the "losers" can be far more interesting and important. --Doncram (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a museum project at Fairfax Ave. & Wilshire Boulevard, would be a huge deal, putting it in a row with LACMA and the La Brea tarpits museum and the Folk Museum and the cars museum (and perhaps more of List of museums in Los Angeles). The proposal/expectation this would happen at that prominent location speaks to the significance of this project. It sounds like a great idea, to me, too. --Doncram (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question: Is this what became the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures (which was first covered in 2008 in Wikipedia as " Museum of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences", when it was just a plan? This project is located at corner of Wilshire Blvd and Fairfax Ave in the May Company Building (Wilshire, Los Angeles) (1939 built), and is currently scheduled to open in 2021, after many delays If this is the same thing, then it would obviously be appropriate to merge the AFD subject article (created in 2015), into that article, perhaps into a section titled "Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum" to cover the phase of the planning period when it had that proposed name. Without any AFD, a merger proposal can be put into place on the two articles, calling for informed editors to implement an intelligent merger. IMO, whether or not this is the same project, this AFD should be closed "Keep" or "Speedy Keep". --Doncram (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all ears for keeping or merging this article if you can show me sources that this building or proposed building is notable but I can't find any sources to suggest so and you haven't shown me any either. I don't know if this is the same project, it sounds like something completely different especially given that sources in the article refer to the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures but don't mention anywhere this museum name and I have no idea what New York Times article you are referring to. This museum does not currently exist, never existed, and as far as I can tell is not planning to open and I have edited to reflect the article to reflect that because it is otherwise misleading. Unlike Sparta Teapot Museum there is no significant coverage of the proposed building to make this notable as far as I can tell. The sole source of the article is actually copied from this postcard. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right. The postcard is the only source remaining in the article, after you just deleted references to two substantial Los Angeles Times articles!!!!

This one of the LA Times articles is the article I was considering to be the main source of the article, and which I referred to mistakenly as the "New York Times" article. It is very substantial, explains the project is at Beverly & Fairfax, and by that fact I am pretty sure it is referring to the project located there and opening in 2021.

JayJay, I have the impression you're a good editor, and would not be intending to pull a fast one, but it is absolutely not okay for a deletion nominator to delete substantial content and sources from an article, just before or during an AFD process. I suggest/request you revert your edit(s) stripping down the article, so it is easier for others to evaluate the article as it was before you arrived. --Doncram (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the articles? Nowhere in them do they mention "Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum" they mention the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures or rather "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" plans for a museum at Beverly & Fairfax and the current article says the proposed site is to be across from the Hollywood Bowl on Highland Ave, which is now a parking lot and makes me believe this was a different project. Why should the sources be kept if they do not refer to the article in question and there are no other sources to prove otherwise. It is misleading to keep them in the article. JayJay^{What did I do?} 06:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i read, and the article would require revision, if there was an editor informed and interested in improving it. Actually I ignored the postcard source at first because it was indicated to be a postcard (and I think it is undated), and I went to the first substantial source, the first LA Times article. If the actual true facts are that there was a Debbie Reynolds-associated proposal long preceding the project now nearing opening, then that probably should be indicated in the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures article, and the AFD subject could be pointed to an anchor set there. It is a true actual non-fake fact that it is hard to open a new major museum, and it takes a long time, and it is appropriate to credit/mention earlier incarnations of a proposal. An AFD is not necessary and is not likely to reach informed editors who visit Wikipedia only occasionally; it woulda been more appropriate to make a merger proposal at the AMMP Talk page and allow a merger to be implemented when informed and interested persons show up there. --Doncram (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Debbie Reynolds part is irrelevant and I probably should not have included it at all but because it was showing up in my searches I wanted to make it clear that it is not related to this project. I believe it is appropriate to mention earlier incarnations of the proposal if that can be proven but there are no sources to back that up and you have not provided any either. Based on what I have found from the Online Archive of California suggests it is not. That is why I didn't propose a merger because I do not think the projects are related. My nomination still stands. JayJay^{What did I do?} 08:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, about "Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum" exactly, the Pacific Coast Architecture Database, which I and other National Register of Historic Places-focused editors have found to be a great, reliable source about architects, reports here that the project was designed, in fact designed by noted architect William Pereira. Maps there suggest it was to be located on N. Cahuenga near Santa Monica Boulevard, or on Vine St. (2 blocks away from N. Cahuenga, parallel) a couple blocks north of Santa Monica Boulevard. It cites two early 1960's articles in Progressive Architecture, a predecessor to Architecture (magazine) which I have not accessed, but may well have good info:

"Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum Project", Progressive Architecture, 42: 2, 60, 2/1961.
"Pereira Houses the Arts, Old and New", Progressive Architecture, 43: 2, 50, 02/1962.

And Guidestar, the main public source about U.S. charitable nonprofits' finances and more, reports here that the "Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum", based in Burbank, California (close to, but not including the Hollywood Bowl) had gone inactive. Using my Guidestar account (free, you could open one too) i find financial reports (United States IRS Form 990's) for 2013, 2014, 2015, reporting very small then zero assets, and inactive status, but naming 9 or 8 members of its board of directors including Debbie Reynolds (as well as Stephanie Powers, Barbara Rush, Rosemarie Stack, Bob Mackie, Ret Turner, and Todd Fisher (much younger than all the others, but who is (according to Wikipedia) CEO of Debbie Reynolds Hotel & Casino and involved in other Debbie Reynolds projects including "the Hollywood Motion Picture Museum, which is housed at Debbie Reynolds Studios (DR Studios) in North Hollywood and at his ranch")). --Doncram (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, a summary of the "Hollywood Museum" project's extensive collection is given here, and the website further provides this historical account (with all bolding and wikilinks added by me, including to highlight other incarnations that might be mentioned):

The Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum (commonly known as the Hollywood Museum) was planned in the early 1960s but was never built. Lack of funding, over-ambitious plans (a museum, galleries, film archive, library and academic complex, theater, sound stage, television studio, demonstration center, concessions, and administrative offices were part of the project at one time or another), and politics all contributed to its failure. This was not the first or the last attempt to build a museum in Hollywood honoring filmmaking. Previous plans—none directly linked to the Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum—included Motion Picture Relief Fund president Jean Hersholt's efforts in 1954 to build a film museum to bring in revenue for the Motion Picture & Television Fund Country House. His successor as president, E. L. DePatie, launched a campaign the following year for a Motion Picture Exposition and Hall of Fame, but the plans were dropped due to lack of industry support. Two years later John Anson Ford, acting chairman of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, moved to establish a committee to explore the creation of a museum in Hollywood. Headed by producer Jack Warner, the committee considered the Hollywood Bowl area as well as Exposition Park, near downtown Los Angeles, as possible locations. The possibility of such a museum in Exposition Park prompted the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce to push for a Hollywood locale. This was the impetus that resulted in the Hollywood Museum commission.

In June 1959, under the initiative of Los Angeles County Supervisor Ernest Debs, whose district included Hollywood, the board of supervisors issued a mandate to build and operate a museum in Hollywood that would foster and perpetuate interest in the motion picture, television, radio, and recording industries. The Los Angeles County Hollywood Motion Picture and Television Museum Commission was formed, with retired producer Sol Lesser acting as chairman. The supervisors offered county-owned land opposite the main entrance to the Hollywood Bowl, supplemented by the acquisition of contiguous parcels. William Pereira, architect of the Motion Picture & Television Fund Country House and Hospital, was hired to study the site and eventually design the building. Two private nonprofit corporations were established in June 1960: the Hollywood Museum Corporation, for the museum construction, and the autonomous Hollywood Museum Associates (HMA), of which Lesser was president. The former would build the facility with county-guaranteed bonds, and the latter would lease it from the county for thirty years, after which the building would revert to the county.

In December 1960 the board of supervisors suggested that the film industry put up half the cost of the project. This caused the HMA concern and was an early warning sign of the troubles to come. Over the next few years the HMA raised nearly $500,000 and gifts continued to accumulate. Groundbreaking ceremonies were held at the proposed site on October 20, 1963. Debs and Lesser, along with Gene Autry, Walt Disney, Jack Warner, Mary Pickford, Gregory Peck, Gloria Swanson, and others, addressed an audience of several thousand people. Early the following year, financier Bart Lytton, a founding member of the museum, publicly demanded an investigation of HMA finances. Despite his claims, the board of supervisors approved the museum lease. A county-condemned building on the site necessitated the eviction of its occupant, who consequently held sheriff's deputies at bay with a shotgun for several weeks until his arrest in April 1964. The dramatic standoff received much attention from the media, and taxpayers began to question the expenditure of public funds. The attorney for the evicted man immediately sued the county to prevent the sale of bonds to finance construction. The supervisors appointed a review board, headed by Lytton (who some claimed was disgruntled because he hadn't been appointed to the commission), that reported the HMA was operating at a deficit.

By late 1964, after having invested more than $1,000,000, the county froze funding. When Lytton saw the architect's plans in March 1965, he claimed the museum would cost $21 million to build. This estimated price tag far exceeded the original $6.5 million proposal and surpassed the amount of money raised thus far. Arguments ensued over how much the building would cost and where the money would come from. The HMA then suspended financial operations and stopped soliciting monetary donations. Two months later the county had completely withdrawn its support. The following month the proposed site was paved over to create a parking lot. (In the early 1980s the unrelated Hollywood Studio Museum, operated by Hollywood Heritage, Inc., opened in the Lasky-DeMille barn, which had been moved to the site.) By the time Lesser resigned as president of the HMA in August 1965, plans for the museum had been abandoned. Numerous attempts to resuscitate the project failed. (Two unrelated museums later opened in Hollywood: the presently shuttered Hollywood Museum on Hollywood Boulevard, showcasing John LeBold's costume collection, in 1984, and the Hollywood Entertainment Museum, near Mann's Chinese Theater in 1996.)

The museum's acquisitions remained in storage facilities supervised by the county until September 1967. In 1968 the City of Los Angeles, through its Board of Recreation and Parks Commission, inherited the Hollywood Museum memorabilia when it paid storage fees owed by the county to the warehouses storing the material. The materials were transferred to the Lincoln Heights jail, near downtown Los Angeles, and placed in the custody of the Hollywood Center for the Audio-Visual Arts. Donor Betty Lasky began a campaign around 1976 to find a proper home for the acquisitions. Terrys Olender, Lasky's attorney, tried to convince Los Angeles Councilwoman Peggy Stevenson to relocate the material to Los Angeles-area institutions. Stevenson appointed Olender public service legal coordinator for the Hollywood Museum project in 1979. Within two years Olender and Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney Bruce Sottile had drawn up city-approved contracts to loan the "research" portion of the collection to four area institutions for a period of 25 years, renewable for an additional 15 years. By May 1982 the research material was distributed among the American Film Institute, the University of Southern California, the University of California at Los Angeles, and the Academy. Ironically, one of the proposals made by Sol Lesser at a 1960 Hollywood Museum Library Committee organizational meeting attended by Margaret Herrick, Academy librarian Betty Franklin, and others was to have the legal committee draw up a performance contract so that the Academy could repossess Hollywood Museum gifts if they were in storage or not in use.

So this was in fact the Debbie Reynolds-associated project, and the CNN source asserting a 1972 start is inaccurate, and the collection itself seems important, and there is a lot of reliable detail about the project available, and there was in fact a lot of news coverage about it and celebrity-studded openings and related shotgun-wielding crazy people. The project seems to me obviously to have been a real thing, not merely a figment of imagination of some fraudulent profits-obsessed postcard publisher. I do wonder if the 2021 museum has inherited or otherwise acquired that collection. So let me reiterate: "Keep", though now with different reasoning. Note the deletion nomination still has not been modified to make any valid deletion argument at all (the fact that the project never opened is simply irrelevant to Wikipedia notability, for example). --Doncram (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC) P.S. Note also that proper treatment of the topic needs to properly characterize and link to existing articles Hollywood Museum and to Hollywood Heritage Museum and to topic Hollywood Motion Picture Museum (currently a redlink). --Doncram (talk) 11:20, 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) 11:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaseya Network Monitor[edit]

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

Product brochure or advertisement, not an encyclopedia article Wouldn't be acceptable even if it were notable, and there's no evidence that it is. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've read the article, sounds like something copied from an instruction manual. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete. The Kaseya seems to be relevant. I typed "Kaseya wikipedia" into Google and was happy to find an article that told me that Kaseya is a monitoring software. I regularly use Wikipedia to find out what kind of software software X, software Y or software Z is. The article was useful for me.2A01:C22:A894:3F00:685E:3664:733D:43C3 (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the name of the product is "Kaseya Network Monitor" , so I do not see why you would need an encyclopedia article to recognize that it is monitoring software. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 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) 11:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Munro[edit]

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

Smells like a promotional article to me. First reference is a press release, second appears to be promotional, third does not seem to match text but does confirm the person is the CEO of a firm they started https://books.google.ca/books?id=KNRSDwAAQBAJ&dq=%22Sandy+Munro%22+Designing+the+Future%2C+McGraw+Hill+Professional+276&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22Sandy+Munro%22 Relishcolouredhat (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The creating editor, Andrew Davidson, is a long-term editor in good standing here, who is highly unlikely to have created an article for promotional purposes. This isn't an area in which I edit, but when declining the speedies, I checked the Google Books source and the snippet view implies there's a solid paragraph there. The commonness of the name makes finding sources difficult. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Production engineering is not the sort of topic that is done well on Wikipedia but it's quite important in the real world of manufacturing. The subject is an expert in this and one can find evidence of this over the years in works like Advances in Aluminum Casting Technology (1998) which says "Sandy Munro, one time Corporate Coordinator of Design for Assembly at Ford, attributes first year savings of $ 1.2 billion to DFM. Now a consultant, Munro believes Chevrolet saved almost $6 billion its first year using this strategy..."

Me, I'm checking out electric cars as emission regulations start to bite in London. Munro's analyses and breakdown of new models like Tesla get a lot of attention in the cloud of new media which now follow such developments. Meanwhile, old media produces lightweight junk like Top Gear and Inside the Factory. Tsk.

As for smells, notice that Relishcolouredhat hasn't done anything except try to delete this in the last 9 months. What accounts for their remarkably low productivity?

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG as it lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting the minimum coverage required by the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known in auto industry, large youtube channel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmsyyz (talk • contribs) 13:52, January 21, 2021 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence he passes WP:NBIO. Passing mentions are not sufficient for WP:GNG, either. The subject hasn't done anything to merit an entry in encyclopedia, at least not based on what the article says and what I can see in the sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not sure if the nominator or any of the other delete voters in this discussion have done a proper WP:BEFORE. A cursory google research reveal multiple news articles from Inverse, CNet, Jalopnik, Inside EVs, Torque News reveal evidence that there may be sources not already covered by the article itself. All of them appear to acknowledge him as an automobile expert, many specifically featured coverage of his opinions of products from the likes of Tesla in detail which meets WP:SIGCOV, and it is apparent that there is sustained coverage as he has been active for a number of years in the public eye. Per WP:NEXIST, a deletion rationale based on the current state of the article's sourcing does not comply with Wikipedia policy. Haleth (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mztourist and Johnpacklambert. There's absolutely nothing in the article to suggest WP:SIGCOV. Andrew Davidson's failure to WP:AGF is also troubling. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haleth. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quick search on Google shows that his Tesla Model Y breakdown was reported on by more than one news outlet, and that he is highly regarded in motor industry. Agree that article reads like a promo, however this is an improvement notice not a delete.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is perhaps a little marginal, but industrial engineering is a field where we need much more coverage and where it is difficult to find good references in the usual sources that we have access to, or even know about. In a sense, it's correcting a form of systematic bias. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 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 03:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opsview[edit]

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

product brochure, not encyclopedia article. Would be unacceptable even if it were notable, but there's no evidence it is . DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant advertising. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article originally created by a WP:SPA, with a PROD removed by an IP shortly thereafter. The article is currently effectively a product brochure (especially in the promotional claims added in April 2020); that said, earlier instances did have some sparse references, including a LinuxWorld award in 2008 for Altinity Opsview v2.12 [106]. There is also a "Monitoring with Opsview" how-to manual. However I am not seeing sufficient evidence for either the company or its product to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 18:38, 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 keep. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allergy UK[edit]

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

Likely non-notable. I did find this reference, but I can't tell if it's an independent source. There would need to be more sources with significant coverage than that though. The creator was later banned from editing on all Wikimedia sites, but I'm not sure why. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is another name for the British Allergy Foundation, established in 1991.^[3] It is a 6000-member health charity in the UK and seems to have some reasonable coverage:

— Respected enough to have evidence taken by UK govt. Health Committee (also some independent background on the charity here).^[4]

— Has coverage in an academic textbook here.^[5]

References

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-PYKn7xlfo
^ https://www.lrytas.lt/verslas/sekmes-istorijos/2020/07/18/news/jogos-studija-jonavoje-atidares-indas-grizti-i-tevyne-net-negalvoja-cia-mano-namai-15649323/
^ Mark Jackson (15 August 2007). Allergy: The History of a Modern Malady. Reaktion Books. pp. 191–. ISBN 978-1-86189-333-8.
^ Great Britain Parliament - Health Committee (2004). The Provision of Allergy Services: Sixth Report of Session 2003-04, Vol. 2: Oral and Written Evidence. The Stationery Office. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-215-02006-2.
^ T Dean (11 August 2000). Food Intolerance and the Food Industry. Elsevier. pp. 145–. ISBN 978-1-85573-634-4.

If it is another name for a notable organisation, then the article should probably be renamed. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: I'm withdrawing this, but the article seems to need to be renamed. SL93 (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you are withdrawing this... Speedy Keep. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:55, 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 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 03:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Treks[edit]

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

No significant coverage. My speedy deletion tag was denied with the edit summary "Declining G11; long-standing article, not wholly promotional. Notability not clearly demonstrated". The article being long-standing isn't relevant and I disagree about it not being wholly promotional. SL93 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarbox[edit]

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

An unremarkable secondary element in a single novel and a few short stories. Doesn’t need an independent article even if more sources are found (I looked and didn’t find much). Dronebogus (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No evidence this fictional town meets WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redirect to John Updike is acceptable to me. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG is not met. Jenyire2 (talk) 07:27, 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.

[1] "Indo-Polish-Action-Thriller-aims-to-rekindle-bilateral-ties". The Hindu.

[2] "Films have power to break boundaries". Mid-day. 2021-01-29.

[3] "Lokmat". Lokmat.

[4] "Bollywood Hungama". Bollywood Hungama.

[5] ttps://twitter.com/defnoodles/status/1325152870136647681

[6] ttps://www.instagram.com/tanacon

[7] ttps://whatstrending.com/video-fans-are-rolling-their-eyes-at-michael-weists-new-tanacon-documentary/

[8] ttps://www.girlfriend.com.au/what-to-expect-tanacon-documentary

[9] ttps://metro.co.uk/2018/11/01/tanacon-ceo-announces-documentary-on-tana-mongeaus-disastrous-event-8093735/

[10] ttps://www.reddit.com/r/ShaneDawson/comments/jq9wp7/thoughts_on_michael_weiss_documentary_on_tanacon/

[11] ttps://www.tubefilter.com/2018/10/30/michael-weist-bankruptcy-tanacon-documentary/

[12] ttps://reelgood.com/uk/movie/tanacon-what-really-happened-2018?amp=true

[13] ttps://www.flixster.com/movie/tanacon-what-really-happened/8478c119-a769-31e5-a42d-29168adfc347

[14] ttps://www.seventeen.com/celebrity/a28246395/tana-mongeau-what-went-wrong-tanacon/

[15] ttps://www.theverge.com/2018/11/6/18068196/tanacon-documentary-behind-scenes-tana-mongeau-vidcon

[16] "On January 03, 2012, President Barack Obama signed into law the designation of this post office in Honor of Sergeant Mendez."

[17] ttps://www.launchknowledge.com/constitution/

[18] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-PYKn7xlfo

[19] ttps://www.lrytas.lt/verslas/sekmes-istorijos/2020/07/18/news/jogos-studija-jonavoje-atidares-indas-grizti-i-tevyne-net-negalvoja-cia-mano-namai-15649323/

[Jackson2007-20] Mark Jackson (15 August 2007). Allergy: The History of a Modern Malady. Reaktion Books. pp. 191–. ISBN 978-1-86189-333-8.

[Committee2004-21] Great Britain Parliament - Health Committee (2004). The Provision of Allergy Services: Sixth Report of Session 2003-04, Vol. 2: Oral and Written Evidence. The Stationery Office. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-215-02006-2.

[Dean2000-22] T Dean (11 August 2000). Food Intolerance and the Food Industry. Elsevier. pp. 145–. ISBN 978-1-85573-634-4.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]