Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 21 January 23 >

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. Sandstein 10:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions for arpeggione[edit]

List of compositions for arpeggione (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary list of compositions that only includes one actual hyperlinked Wikipedia page Why? I Ask (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:49, 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 01:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suhail Al Zarooni[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Suhail Al Zarooni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability as a businessperson and appears to be mostly notable for a bizare series of collections [1]. Though apparently well sourced, these sources are largely promotional in nature. The first and second AFDs had a single participant and were relisted. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His Excellency is a very known man in UAE, and there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.194.19.135 (talk) 06:43, 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 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Magnus[edit]

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Magnus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Identical with Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (consul 33): both are described as brothers of Faustus Cornelius Sulla (consul 31). The surname 'Magnus' must be incorrect. Avilich (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article contains nothing that isn't in the other article, and there is no explanation for the surname "Magnus", which as far as I can tell doesn't occur in any source readers are likely to have consulted, and so isn't a likely search term. Since the article has never cited any sources, and I can't find this form of the subject's name in likely reference works or in epigraphy, it's impossible to determine where "Magnus" comes from—and so I don't see it helping anyone locate or distinguish this particular Sulla. If any evidence for this surname is discovered, this could be re-created as a redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, or redirect out of caution. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesnt meet WP:SIGCOV Jenyire2 (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if it could be proved this person was not the same as the consul of 33, what claim of notability does he have? Note: Roman Senators were not elected officials; they were individuals whose wealth entitled them to be one of 600 members of the Roman Senate. Most could be described as "non-entities" (with a tip of the hat to Ronald Syme, who sometimes applies that adjective to Senators who are not proconsuls, consuls, or appointed to imperial offices). -- llywrch (talk) 23:13, 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 and redirect to Watch strap#NATO Straps. — The Earwig talk 07:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NATO watch strap[edit]

NATO watch strap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"The durability of the strap prevents moisture from wicking away on the skin"; ", the G10 NATO strap has become a favourite among watch fans everywhere.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]"; "NATO straps are known for being relatively inexpensive"; "NATO straps are also known for being easy to clean and swap around for daily use"; "NATO straps are available in different sizes, lengths and designs to accommodate a wide variety of designs and watch composures"; "NATO straps are also used amongst deep sea divers and water-sports".

Instead of feeling informed, I feel like I should buy a watch and replace its strap with a NATO strap. As I was recently informed about the existence of WP:NCORP, these articles are expected to have content that sounds encyclopedic and not as an advert. According to this person here, who seems to work for a company owning the trademark, "the references used are only bloggers opinions with misleading information." The most reliable source seems to be Fortune[2], and the title "Your Watch Needs a NATO Strap" sounds like a sponsored-content article.

If the article is to be kept, it truly needs to be completely rewritten to be encyclopedic. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE that the editor who created this article is a litigious so and so who holds trademarks, and has initiated proceedings against others, but not us. Has today made a chilling legal threat though, but not in a particularly high profile spot. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 22:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect in line with Roxy above. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Roxy. Any attempts to hijack this again, and the not-so-veiled legal threats, should be dealt with the old fashioned indef block way. oknazevad (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect As per all above. Sliekid (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW. Redirect is optional. I would delete articles just because of legal threats. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More spurious trademark claims

International Watchman Inc. is only pursuing and advocating for its USPTO Trademark Rights in governing class 014 Watches, Watchbands and Watchstraps. Reg. #3,907,646.

NATO® is its own brand encompassing numerous products which are also registered under the USPTO, which is no different than NIKE®.

The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_watch_strap was written with misleading information and with non-credited sources only to establish personal commerce. Our intentions here are to amend and inform readers with correct information.

International Watchman is not promoting the NATO® brand. We are not mentioned anywhere in the article and are not intending to do so.

Reference links used can be easily viewed and determined as commercial websites and or bloggers intended for profit.

As clearly stated these reference links and written articles are in fault with your WikiPedia protocol and Guidelines. ie; conflict of interest , mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements , neutral point of view.

This article along with any reference or redirected article; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_strap) needs to be strictly construed with the same legal parameters by the USPTO and protocol adhered by wikipedia.

The redirected article is also an error and needs to be amended and corrected in the same fashion.

“Watch straps” cannot be categorized as NATO" straps unless followed by the Reg. Trademark ®. ie: Nike® Shoes. (not all Shoes are NIKE)

We appreciate your assistance accordingly in keeping wikipedia a creditable source for its community.

Respectfully,

International Watchman Inc. NATO® — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMan1215 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 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 delete. Jax MN, if you want to work on the article in your userspace, drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll undelete it and move it there. (You should, however, obtain a consensus for re-creation at WP:DRV before moving it back to mainspace.) . Deor (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Sigma (Philippines)[edit]

Kappa Sigma (Philippines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This thoroughly fails WP:GNG or WP:ORG. WP:BEFORE, and on a Google News search, even with the search string "Philippines" spit out the United States fraternity, and not the Philippines-based one. I do see a handful of references relating to Filipinos, but not to the Philippines-based fraternity, but to the United States one. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom –Cupper52Discuss! 21:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Sliekid (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Barely found anything about the fraternity. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not surprised that English language searches do not find much about this organization. The article describes a Notable organization and should be retained on this basis: First, it certainly meets the standard used by the Fraternities and Sororities Project that requires at least three chapters to claim national status. (It has 21 chapters). Even if it was a local, single-chapter fraternity it would be required to have existed ten years for notability; this organization is over 35 years old. Kappa Sigma (Philippines) has a stable, professional website. Finally, it is a registered corporation, listed by the Philippine SEC. Because the category's standard reference, Baird's Manual, has not listed any Philippine fraternities (or those headquartered outside of the US and Canada), Kappa Sigma (Philippines) is unable to cite that book. In lieu of this, and because some 37 fraternities and sororities out of a pool of almost 300 in the Philippines are/were stable enough to become registered corporations, the F&S Project allows Philippine SEC registration as an indicator of validity and notability. Finally, Kappa Sigma (Philippines)'s Talk page "to do" list asks for additional citations and other cleanup, reasonably so, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. I prefer to improve articles on valid, non-controversial subjects, instead of salting random AfD PRODs.
One further benefit of this article is that it helps reduce natural confusion between the Philippine group and the larger Kappa Sigma fraternity, based in the US.
This rush to delete is arbitrary, without adherence to the consistent, methodical approach used by the active Fraternities and Sororities Project and an unnecessary example of "Deletionism" versus the more helpful and comprehensive approach of "Inclusionism". When a random AfD PROD appeared on the article, I wrote a more lengthy defense on the Talk page. It should have settled the matter there. There are some 1,200 national and local groups we track that are Notable, while we ourselves deem some 6,000 past or present fraternal organizations as Non-Notable. To pick at one, and waste time in a capricious AfD debate is pointless and harmful. Deletionism simply pushes away helpful new editors and opens the door to a broader, more inclusive competitor to Wikipedia. Neither are good outcomes. Jax MN (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused, why do you say "the standard used by the Fraternities and Sororities Project" and then point to a page solely edited by yourself? If you are going to argue based on some perceived consensus, at least point to a page where a consensus can be seen. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Response Hello Duke. Project participants include those listed on our project page and many others who routinely monitor Greek pages. My efforts to update individual Talk pages and the Project Watchlist aim to help publicize pages to those who care about these articles, as an entry point, or re-engagement point. When new or experienced editors review the Project, they are now met with a list of general To Do items (there is much work to be done for the category), just as individual Greek articles are being given their own To Do suggestion lists. Various links bring them to the items I'd posted on Notability and on Syntax. Sure, I wrote the Notability section. --Fully in keeping with Wikipedia's broader policy, and written to more clearly state our specific issues. It collates what had previously been implied rules, and allows a backstop for consistency. While writing, I also was mindful of the standards used by Baird's Manual for inclusion. (Many, many thousands of collegiate societies do NOT meet those requirements.) As the premier reference work for the category, I appreciate that Baird's offers clarity on what groups were/are notable, and which aren't, in general alignment with Wikipedia. Thus, the section you mention offers consistency and clarity, and is fully open for revision or collaboration. Consensus-forming can take months. I certainly welcome that discussion. BOLD, n'est ce pas? Do you suggest another place where I ought to port this discussion for consensus? I thank you for your respectful inquiry on this, and for not rushing to delete, "per nom".
BTW, my secondary purpose is to welcome and mentor new users. This benefits Wikipedia, where too often new users get burned off because of aggressive demands for bloated citation, aggressive AfD PRODs, unfriendly jargon in edits and reverts, and other Deletionist tactics. These are bullying efforts, and harmful to our goal of making Wikipedia the most useful resource of its kind. Jax MN (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find sources to satisfy WP:ORG. I am sympathetic to the argument that it's difficult to find sources for this in English (and I also searched in Spanish), but fact is, the article has zero instances of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Ref 1 is their website, ref 2 is a mention of registration, ref 3 is not reliable - the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online, and ref 4 is not independent. There's nothing to work with. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Philippine fraternities are notable, you can easily find them with a Google search in English. One such example is the Sigma Rho Fraternity, where the 1st 17(!) references are about the fraternity itself, while references 18-41 are passing mentions of the fraternity on references about its members. It's not that hard to find, if notable. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that Kappa Sigma (Philippines) is a valid group, and it exists. I fully agree with you Howard that citations are limited. Just yesterday I wrote to the group, seeking outside citations or university mention. In my experience, most of the 300 Philippine GLOs (Greek Letter Organizations) have poor external references available, far less than the typical US GLO, so I'd offered the rationale that a Philippine SEC registration (37 of them) would be a minimum requirement for inclusion on WP. Of course, we can apply a more stringent standard, leaving only a couple of groups with articles. (And open the door for a more comprehensive alternative to Wikipedia.) I would prefer that we leave this as a STUB or START page, inviting further citations. Jax MN (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not every organization that has existed will get a Wikipedia article. Please be versed with WP:ORG and ultimately WP:GNG. Existence does not mean notability. If WP:RS of a fraternity exists, you can easily find them. If there are only a handful of fraternities that fulfill this requirement, that's not our problem. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:58, 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) 20:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Momar Sakanoko[edit]

Momar Sakanoko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized and completely unreferenced biography of a basketball player and entrepreneur, not making any strong claim to passing our notability standards in either field. He has not played in any league that is listed in WP:NHOOPS as granting players an automatic presumption of notability, so his notability depends on being able to clear WP:GNG on his sourcing -- but there aren't any sources here at all, and while there used to be a couple in an older version of the article there weren't enough: the only genuinely reliable source present at all, in any prior version of the article, just glancingly mentioned his existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense. There's simply nothing stated here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Johnpacklambert and nom. –Cupper52Discuss! 21:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Claims of 5-star Recruiting ratings out of HS are not backed up by any sources. The article claims he won the Argentine Liga Nacional de Básquet with Bahía Basket. While he seems to have been at least on trial with Bahía during the summer of 2019, I can't find any evidence that he actually played anything other than pre-season games. Furthermore, Bahía has never won the Liga Nacional de Básquet. I can't find any record that he played for BC Brno but he did appear in one game for the BSC Fürstenfeld Panthers during the 2019-2020 season in the second-tier Austrian league [3][4] Alvaldi (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per all fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliekid (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Several dubious claims in the article history. If he was truly in the ESPN Top 100, that would be abundantly clear from a Google search. Most of the articles on the internet look like paid promotional pieces, rather than traditional journalism. Zagalejo^^^ 01:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:SNOW, and because I am still not convinced that EuroBasketball is a reliable source. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability standards. Jenyire2 (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG and falls incredibly short of an WP:NHOOPS pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Socialist Party (1987)[edit]

Scottish Socialist Party (1987) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties. Unlike their namesake, this Scottish Socialist Party has no notability which satisfies our policies, including the GNG principles for articles. Political parties are not automatically notable, particularly if they achieve nothing beyond standing for election which is to be expected of them. Article relies on one off-line reference. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cites only one source so does not prove notability, –Cupper52Discuss! 20:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a significant party. The brief coverage of it in the Bill Kidd an Alex Wood articles would seem sufficient to me. That said, there might be a case for mentioning its existence (and that of other earlier groups named the Scottish Socialist Party) at Scottish Socialist Party Dunarc (talk) 21:25, 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 redirect to List of numbered roads in Ottawa. — The Earwig talk 07:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth Line Road[edit]

Tenth Line Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability given. Floydian τ ¢ 20:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Floydian τ ¢ 20:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Heilbron[edit]

Terry Heilbron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. My WP:BEFORE search through Google books and British newspapers, as well as various search engines, did not yield any pieces of significant coverage. Sources invariably only cover Heilbron in a trivial way; for example, passing mentions in match reports, reporting of a manager saying they didn't like one of his refereeing decisions or an allegation of being manhandled by a player. An allegation of spitting in a local 5-a-side game is perhaps the only story that's more than trivial but I still think it borders on WP:NOTNEWS.

Even if this referee is somehow deemed notable, the article would need a complete rewrite as it is written very promotionally. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Per nom and has been tagged for notability since 2018, despite being created back in 2007. –Cupper52Discuss! 20:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting one as I know this ref, been very well known in the game, surely there must be more sources out there. But I don't know. Govvy (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No need to drag this out. Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayra Rivera[edit]

Mayra Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Geoff | Who, me? 19:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it can be sourced, it meets WP:PROF point 5.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: How is someone with a named chair at Harvard failing NPROF? The article needs sourcing but the subject clearly has presumed notability. And the claim is sourced, a primary source is sufficient for a simple factual claim like this; though the article should have other sources, the factual claim that establishes notability is not in any serious doubt. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Easily verifiable: [5]. Clear pass of WP:NPROF#C5 at Harvard, no less. Glane23, please withdraw this nomination. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can't argue here. Apparently WP:PROF is the only guideline which a person can completely fail the basic litmus test for notability to be included WP:N and yet still be notable just because they are a member of academia. Must be nice to not have to be held to higher standards than this. Significant coverage be damned. Is that a primary source? Meh, who cares, they are a professor, scholar or and a member of the superior caste of academia. --ARoseWolf 20:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SNOW per above. –Cupper52Discuss! 20:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly fits WP:NPROF under criterion 5: named chair. Was previously sourced but changed under this revision.--Caorongjin (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I’ve voted already, the nominatior is wrong. It DOES cite sources when you said it didn’t. –Cupper52Discuss! 20:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was unsourced at the time of nomination. As well as failing to perform WP:BEFORE and look for outside sources, and as well as failing to correctly apply WP:PROF, the nominator appears to have failed to look at the article history, in which a WP:SPA stripped the article of its sources an hour before the nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, bad nomination, obvious and easily verifiable pass of WP:PROF and probably also WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Buchanan[edit]

Darryl Buchanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor, unsuccessful mayoral candidate and bureaucrat in a midsized city. As always, people at this level of political office are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NPOL #2, he would have to be sourced to a significant range and depth of nationalizing coverage that established him as much more notable than the norm for local politicians. This does feature more actual sources than Terry Bankert, but they're still exclusively local coverage of a type and depth and number that's simply expected to routinely exist for all municipal-level politicians everywhere, and nothing about them establishes him as a special notability case over and above most other city councillors, unsuccessful mayoral candidates or city clerks. This simply isn't enough to make a person at this level of political office notable enough for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Bankert[edit]

Terry Bankert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a municipal bureaucrat in a midsized city. As always, people at this level of political office are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NPOL #2, he would have to be sourced to a significant range and depth of nationalizing coverage that established him as much more notable than most other city clerks or ombudsmen. But of the five footnotes here, four are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (e.g. his own website, the city's own self-published reports, raw tables of election results). There's only one news article in the local newspaper for reliable sourcing, and even that article just glancingly mentions Bankert without being about him to any non-trivial degree. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of a lot more and wider coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraful Alam Khokan[edit]

Ashraful Alam Khokan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable journalist. Deputy Press Secretary of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh isn't notable position. I did google search but didn't find anything notable. No significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There are some refs in the article but those are press release. Fails WP:JOURNALIST, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted on bnwiki for same reasons. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete deputy press secretary is not a notable position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. –Cupper52Discuss! 21:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator is an admin on bnwiki (Bangla Wikipedia). So that’s how they noticed. –Cupper52Discuss! 21:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.~Yahya (✉) • 14:13, 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 speedy Withdrawn. I think being the former Dean establishes WP:PROF and there's sourcing to verify. Thanks @ImTheIP: StarM 02:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC) StarM 02:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Taraki[edit]

Lisa Taraki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find significant, independent sources to provide evidence that she's notable as an activist, author, journalist or professor. Note yes, there are plenty of hits, mostly her own byline, which makes a search a little complicated. StarM 19:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article obviously needs a lot of work, but she is a fairly well-known scholar. Interviews: [6], [7], [8], [9]. I added some of her published works to the article. ImTheIP (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm pretty sure interviews with the subject don't count toward secondary coverage for PROF/BIO, but may be wrong. StarM 01:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:HEY. I've updated the article significantly. I believe she passes WP:NPROF criteria 6 due to her work at Birzeit (only top uni in Palestine) and criteria 7 due to her activism. ImTheIP (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not reviewed the sources, but there is a lot of press about women being underrepresented in our encyclopedia (per Wikipedia:WikiProject Women only 17% of biographies are about women), so I would advocate erring on the side of inclusion if the sources review is on the margin. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply all for that as well, especially in non-English speaking countries but 2 appears to be an org with which she's affiliated and 1/3 don't appear at all to be a reliable source leaving only 4, which is also still an interview. StarM 01:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Delete One independent source is not enough to establish WP:GNG also as the all of the source partisan we cannot truly write a WP:NPOV article .--Shrike (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The correct way of addressing systemic bias against women is to go out of our way to identify notable women and write well-sourced articles about them. Applying lower criteria to bios of women than what we use for men is not the way to go. --Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ImTheIP's additional sources establish GNG, particularly the interviews and biographies in Frontline (magazine), Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs and The Guardian. Plus the fact that she is one of the most senior academics at Palestine's most prestigious university, and founded both their Institute of Women’s Studies and their doctoral programme in social sciences. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Advocate[edit]

Anis Advocate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL Onel5969 TT me 19:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article just documents his membership in a political party, and doesn't even try to claim that he's held any notable political office that would have passed WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure that we can all agree that the subject doesn't pass WP:NPOL, but the issue still remains of whether he passes the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 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 07:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barebone, Kentucky[edit]

Barebone, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick, but Rennick's Trimble County directory and index only mention Barebone Creek with no mention of a community there. Nothing on the topos, and the newspapers.com results don't seem to suggest a community here. I don't think WP:GEOLAND (or even really WP:V) here is met. And even for an article about the small, routine creek, "Barebone, Kentucky" isn't going to be a logical name. Hog Farm Talk 18:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 18:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 18:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Topos show a set of three buildings which also appear on aerials, and which are still standing; if you drive by on Street View, you can see that they consist of two barns and a farmhouse. So obviously not a settlement. It's depressing to discover that GNIS was misreading Rennick the same way that WP misread Durham in California, but judging from this example, that seems to be the case. Mangoe (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: Because this is a "ghost town", it doesn't really matter that there are "two barns and a farmhouse", a pile of ruins, or nothing. One of the features of a ghost town is that no one lives there anymore, which makes whether anyone actually used to live there the test of notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a lot of data describing Barebone--a small community now a ghost town--as a populated place.
  • Several sources, such as this one, refer to the "Barebone district".
  • This obituary discusses the school in Barebone, as does this source (original here). In that source some of the families that attended are listed. What is interesting is that there are obituaries with some of those same family names:
  • [10] - John Andrew died in 1939.
  • [11] - members of the Callis family.
  • A local genealogical and historical website compiled census data and clippings from The Trimble Democrat, where Barebone is mentioned many times as a place people were born, lived, and died. Unfortunately, the link is blacklisted by Wikipedia. See...http:// + search.freefind.com/servlet/freefind?id=7853207&pageid=r&mode=ALL&query=barebone&mode=Match+ALL
When I created the article I chose not to include these sources because the information was either not notable, or the source was primary. However, these sources do establish--unless the genealogical and historical community of Trimble County have conspired to create a fictional place called "Barebone"--that many people did indeed call Barebone home. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A paper that I found for Trimble County, which mentions only Barebone Creek, in the La Posta: A journal of American postal history is:
Rennick, R.M., 2001, The Post Offices of Trimble County, Kentucky. La Posta: A journal of American postal history.32(1), pp. 58-62 Paul H. (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rennick Trible county place names is one of the source cited in the nomination statement. Paul, thanks for alerting me to the existence of Rennick's post office guides, as those may prove useful in future searches about KY place stubs. I was aware of Rennick having a large index and county-by-county directories, but not the post office document with lists of communities. Hog Farm Talk 21:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - The corrected link to index of Rennick's manuscripts and notes is Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection. Paul H. (talk) 03:24, 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 deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Khali[edit]

Pablo Khali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Avoids WP:A7 due to the claims of significant awards and charting in a notable chart. I don't think this passes WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG; the Billboard and 2015 Nigeria Entertainment Awards claims look like hoaxes. I could not find a source to verify them. Most of the sources don't mention Khali at all. Nothing of note coming up for "Ojako Peter Godfrey" or "Ojako Sunday Peter". Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Autobiographical article on a non notable musician that’s fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike in the case of anyone within the elite circles of academia there is not a guideline here that allows rather obscure musicians and such to be included without passing the litmus test of notability WP:N. As such this subject woefully fails the basic criteria for inclusion. --ARoseWolf 20:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for muscians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I fixed a couple of newbie mistakes to this article. Mr Pablo Khali may be notable. My read is that this article was started by a newbie, who made a noble effort. Yet issues exist, and in order to avoid WP:BITE I suggest userification so he can have a chance to get assistance with them. Geo Swan (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9 out of the 14 refs are not even about Khali. They are about Lil Kesh, Wiz Khalifa, Boy Pablo and Pablo Escobar! We also need to pay diligence to the fact that this is an autobiography and the creator's activity strongly suggests that they are here for the sole purpose of promoting themselves and are bordering on WP:NOTHERE. I do believe that we need to do what we can to encourage newbies to stay and feel welcome but I do not believe that we should be encouraging them to write autobiographies or to promote themselves in any other way. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Rosier[edit]

Malik Rosier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for gridiron football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How? The page currently has a high school profile and a mention in the Palm Beach Post. When I did WP:BEFORE, I got mentions of his invitation to training camp, but nothing about him being a professional football player. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He was the starting QB at Miami (a Power 5 team), passed for 4,543 yards and 34 TDs and received extensive coverage as such. A few examples: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Cbl62 (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:46, 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Simonson[edit]

Troy Simonson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, just being the CEO of a company does not give a free pass to notability. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources are either passing mentions, announcements or profiles on some websites and I can see nothing that establishes independent notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. GSS 💬 16:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 16:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete run of hte mill local business guy with no in depth coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 16:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Delete

Primary author: Agree with community's comments regarding deletion.

This profile covers Troy Simonson, who was the first CEO of one of the ten largest orthopedic healthcare organizations in the entire United States.

Contrary to the comment from User GSS, the articles referenced do not make a passing reference to Troy Simonson, but rather he is indeed the subject of these majority of the articles. I would ask that potential reviewers please actually open these articles to see this themselves. The reason for this coverage is that the CEO of one of the largest healthcare groups in the US has a very significant impact.

The sources for these articles include 1) the Star Tribute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Tribune) which is the largest newspaper in the state of Minnesota, 2) Beckers (a leading healthcare newspaper referenced throughout wikipedia), and 3) the Business Journal, among others.

I have not yet been through a deletion debate, but I hope this helps to clarify to the Wikipedia community why this figure absolutely fits the criteria for notability and should be kept. I have worked to edit and further Wikipedia's articles on notable healthcare figures, inspired in part by the low number of articles on these figures relative to others like pop culture and wealthy financiers. I am not sure how someone can do much more to be notable within healthcare, but deliberately reviewed the General Notability Guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline) before publishing this and believe that Troy Simonson certainly fits these criteria.

Thank you for taking the time to be a part of this community.

RJorst10 (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)— RJorst10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The independent sources do contain quotes from him about the company, but don't include coverage of him. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a run of the mill business owner. In a business field where most businesses are quite small, even running the largest such business in one particular country is not going to be a default sign of notability,John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG and WP:SNOW. He's not accomplished anything notable; being the CEO of a medical company with 100 MDs is not notable per se, and the coverage is lacking. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 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 main point of contention between the keep and merge/redirect !votes isn't about sourcing or content but about how articles about exoplanets and the star systems they're found in should be organized. That discussion should be done at a more appropriate forum to allow for broader input than an AfD for a singular article, such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-1638[edit]

Kepler-1638 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. No popular coverage, no in-depth scientific publications, just one star/exoplanet in various lists of a thousand plus objects. Lithopsian (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for your comment. The list of potentially habitable exoplanets is actually very low (60 at the moment). I created the article because the vast majority of these exoplanets have also Wikipedia articles about their stars. IMO this particular one falls within the criteria nº 3 (The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, including newspaper articles). The study of the star is actually what led to find the exoplanet. I honestly think both go together: the star system itself. In addition, it is the farthest star with a known potentially habitable exoplanet ExoEditor 18:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since there was already an article on Kepler-1638b, creating an article on its host star makes sense. IMO articles on exoplanet host stars should take priority over articles on individual exoplanets, since any exoplanet is a subtopic of its planetary system; an article on a star shouldn't be deleted or merged if (an) article(s) on its planet(s) are kept. For one thing, having an article on the host star means that if any additional planets are discovered in the system, they can all be described in a single article. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both Kepler-1638 and Kepler-1638b to List of potentially habitable exoplanets. The nominator seems to be correct that this system doesn't meet WP:NASTRO - there's no coverage of it individually, just as one of a large number of Kepler systems. Since the main source of interest in Kepler-1638b is that it's listed as a potentially habitable planet, both articles should be redirected to that list. There also isn't much to say about the system beyond basic data that can fit in a list entry. I'd also be fine with keeping, or merging the planet article into the star article (but not the reverse). SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some edits to the above comment (now two comments); hopefully this clarifies things. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep The object is at least a bit notable for having a potentially habitable exoplanet. And Kepler-1638b is pretty notable so I would not merge it into the list of potentially habitable exoplanets. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kepler-1638b. The star is only notable because of the exoplanet, and there isn't even anything to write about it other than the basic parameters. The exoplanet is notable, Ref. 5 [20] does talk about it individually. Tercer (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that counts as significant coverage per WP:NASTRO, but in that case the planet article should be merged into the star article per my comment above. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, as the exoplanet happens to be notable enough. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kepler-1229b, I agree with you. ExoEditor 18:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above by Kepler-1229b and Exoeditor. WolreChris (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Kepler-1638b into Kepler-1638. There are going to be a *lot* of exoplanets found in the coming years, and I think a policy should be made about how to handle them. IMHO it makes the most sense to have the star and all of its planets covered in a single article, and name the page after the star, except in the spectacularly rare instances (just our Solar System?) where enough is known about one of the planets that covering that planet along with the rest of its system-mates would make the article too long.PopePompus (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, the exoplanet is notable enough. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that the exoplanet is not notable. I just think from an organizational point of view it would make sense to put all of the information about each "exo-Solar System" into a single article, unless that would make the article too long. Both the star page and the planet page are only one paragraph long. Why not put everything known about that system into a single article, named after the star? There could be redirects for notable planets.PopePompus (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that makes perfect sense; List of potentially habitable exoplanets has plenty of examples, such as Kepler-26 and Kepler-26b, or even silly stuff like Gliese 1061, Gliese 1061 c, and Gliese 1061 d. I don't think here is the proper place to discuss this, though. Perhaps you should suggest this mass-merge at WT:ASTRO? Tercer (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your examples show exactly what I was trying to suggest. Would Wikipedia really be better if Kepler-26 and Kepler-26b were separate articles, with Kepler-26 repeating some of the information available on the Kepler-26b page, in order to establish notability? I don't think so. If nothing else, minimizing the amount of duplicated information appearing in separate articles makes maintaining the articles easier.PopePompus (talk) 17:57, 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. The one "keep" opinion does not name the sources that supposedly establish notability. Sandstein 22:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell X[edit]

Campbell X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am opening this discussion as a courtesy to Sophiemayer, who will post a statement. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to 331dot. There are no current public sources that affirm Campbell X's gender identity (he/him) and available sources deadname and misgender the filmmaker (according to Wiki Gender Identity guidelines). I would appreciate the page being deleted, with the hope that reliable and accurate public sources are available in the future.Sophiemayer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clearly not enough sources to show it meets Wikipedia guidelines. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above. Venusecxces (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a stub class article about an emerging Black transgender British filmmaker whose works thus far have been shown at major international LGBTQ+ film festivals. This article can easily be improved over the next year as there are interviews and other sources to cite / add content. RachelWex (talk) 19:33, 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. Tone 16:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander McCormick Jr.[edit]

Alexander McCormick Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:59, 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. Tone 16:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warren, California[edit]

Warren, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another NN rail location that never shows up as more than a few trackside buildings. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Passing mention there, this says it was a railroad point, and the key seems to suggest that the depot was elsewhere. Coverage is all trivial, and no indication of legal recognition as a community, so neither WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND are met. Hog Farm Talk 15:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of 12 oz. Mouse characters[edit]

List of 12 oz. Mouse characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsalvageable fancruft; maybe the major characters can have a quick mention in 12 oz. Mouse as part of the Cast section, but even still, it seems better to do that from scratch than try to merge. ~EdGl talk 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Character lists, even for notable shows, still need to be comprised of sourced information, and be able to pass WP:LISTN and/or the WP:GNG. This particular list is only using one source, which is the show itself. Searching turns up nothing in reliable sources that covers the characters of the show in any depth. There is already a "Cast" section of the main 12 oz. Mouse which covers the main characters and their voice actors, which covers the topic about as well as can be done with the sources available. As this list contains no content based on reliable, secondary sources, there is nothing worth preserving or merging. Rorshacma (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 16:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absolutely nothing worth salvaging. Nothing but unsourced fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In episode 19 "Farewell," Shark is gunned down by Fitz, Skillet, and the cyborg Green Sweater Girl. Hell if we need to know this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability test. Shame as it seems someone spent a lot of time to write this and publish it. BlakesMa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately it seems to happen a lot. ~EdGl talk 00:23, 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. Tone 16:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Houser[edit]

Ralph Houser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find significant independent coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Navy Cross is a second tier gallantry medal and top rank reached was colonel, so subject does not meet requirements of WP:SOLDIER Dumelow (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just browsed for sources. As well as regular military histories such as Battle History of the United States Marine Corps and The Recapture of Guam, I found this which repackages our article as a book costing 45€. It doesn't seem to attribute the authorship of our text correctly and so we should maintain this page to provide the correct attribution and free access for both our contributors and readers. Note that deletion is something of a misnomer as the content is not actually deleted; instead it is restricted to administrators. There doesn't seem to be any sensible reason to restrict readership in this way and so the proposal is disruptive. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to see what the above sources say about the subject, can you elaborate on this? The only mention I could find in a search online was in a history of the USS Lexington where he's mentioned as CO of the marines onboard and for his actions in reacting to a bomb strike, but nothing that struck me as providing sufficient notability. Not an expert, but surely the "book" would have to include attribution to comply with the CC by SA license? - Dumelow (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails to meet our inclusion criteria for soldiers, and nothing said so far in any way suggests that Houser is notable. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nor are Wikipedia mirrors. I was willing to pay over $30 to get a biography of Tonga Toutai Pāletu'a, the first president of the Nuku'alofa Tonga Temple, the first ethnic Tongan stake patriarch, stake president, mission president and regional representativie in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and maybe even notable. I wish I believed that book made him notable, but it was written by his grandson, so I know we will not pass the hurdle that way. Pāletu'a is also a character in The Other Side of Heaven 2, but that is not under the best of circumstances grounds for notability. Arguably he is one of the 3 main characters in the film, maybe the second biggest role after John H. Groberg. The problem is that despite what they say at the end Tonga Toutai Pāletu'a in that film is not the real Tonga Toutai Pāletu'a, but a fictional character who has the exact same name. The real Tonga Toutai Pāletu'a was a married adult, a counselor in the mission presidency to Groberg, was baptized in 1941 just after which he was assulted so badly by one of his brothers he had to go to the hospital, he was not assualted by an uncle on Niutoputapu in 1966. In fact he was older than John H. Groberg, so the whole portrayal in the film has no connection to reality. My main point is selling a book is not something that forces us to create an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SOLDIER is definitely not satisfied. Whether there is or isn't a pirated book is irrelevant. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 07:55, 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. Tone 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Huttleston Rogers Coe[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Henry Huttleston Rogers Coe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was up for deletion almost 15 years ago as part of a web of family biographies and closed as no consensus. His father, mother and son may all be notable, but there's nothing here in this article that would be a claim of notability and I found no meaningful reliable and verifiable sources about him in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so this guy served in the Navy during World War II, and he ran a local lodging for tourists in Cody, Wyoming. Being the father of a state senator is not a sign of notability, that is about what we would need to find to justify having this article. It mainly represents how non-notable many of the subjects of articles we allowed to be created in the crazy wild-west like days of pre-2006 Wikipedia were. Although for the record, I still think Sonny Elliot is notable, I am just not sure the sourcing to prove that is easy to find. I digress, but where Wikipedia has the biggest issues is these people who may in some way be hyper-locally notable, but people do not find many sources to demonstrate this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I meant Sonny Eliot. Interesting that article was deleted by Prod. Just the coverage of his death in 2012 is a level of coverage more than lots of people we do deem notable. Eliot was by all accounts one of the most colorful of radio weathermen. I guess I could put forth the effort and recreate the article, but I do not feel like it at the moment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olumide Gbenro[edit]

Olumide Gbenro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

completely and utterly non-notbale individual, when we remove all the paid sources and blatant non rs (of which I've removed most) we are left with one, which is a podcast. There is no in depth coverage in actual rs. CUPIDICAE💕 14:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Award-wining" and he's only had one award, of dubious notability. Remote-work influencer isn't a notable position. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 15:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 15:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing here suggests actual notability. "Influence" is a far too widely used title these days.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — 0 coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No coverage by reliable, independent sources. I'm seeing no evidence of notability. Ashleyyoursmile! 05:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - promotional article on a totally non-notable human being Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:16, 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. Tone 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Elliott (character)[edit]

Steve Elliott (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing is nowhere near enough to show that this character is actually in any way notable. Wikipedia is not meant to be Wikia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The character is covered in detail in numerous books including The American Family on Television; TV Weddings: An Illustrated Guide; Television Character and Story Facts; and the Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 1925 through 2010. Our policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 15:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Davidson, Please quote that "coverage in detail". All I see is a passing plot summary-level mentions and no analysis. Your "detailed coverage" in the cited encyclopedia is one sentence (p.828) "Betty Jo married Steve Elliott in fourth season episode and they later became the parents of Kathy Jo." Do tell me what am I missing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps Google is restricting Piotrus' access. I can see the entire entry in that encyclopedia and there's much more than one sentence. I shan't be copy-typing it all though as that would be both a chore and a copyright violation. I am content that this establishes the encyclopedic and notable nature of the content and so we're good. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Andrew Davidson, WP:QUOTE allows quoting of at least several sentences, so you should be safe. But if this is a "chore", can you tell us the number of the page you are looking at, and the position of the text you are wary of citing on that page? That should be safe enough, and indeed if there are entire paragraphs I missed, we wouldn't want to have you sued for excessive quoting, now, would we? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The quote that matters here is Piotrus's statement above: 'Your "detailed coverage" in the cited encyclopedia is one sentence...' Perhaps Piotrus can tell us why they said it was one sentence, when it is more than that. Is the difficulty reading, comprehension, counting or what? We should understand their deficiency to best address it. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew - Piotrus provided one sentence. His evidence is right here for everyone to see. . Yet considering you have not presented a single sentence to defend your position, what I see is not a reading deficiency. You claim "detailed coverage," yet you provided zero proof, not even a single sentence to back up your claims. That's a deficiency, really, and of a pretty low sort - claiming that sources exist yet ignoring to provide quotations when asked. If, as you indicated above, it is a chore to provide evidence to back up your claims, perhaps you should concentrate on contributing to discussions in places you don't find so tiresome. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Petticoat Junction - While some mentions of the character do exist in sources (though even most of that is casting and/or plot summaries), none of it is actually extensive enough to justify the character being split out into an independent article, rather than just being covered on the main article for the show, which he already is. As there is essentially no useful, reliably sourced content in the article currently, no Merge is needed, but a simple redirect may be useful. Though, in becoming a redirect, it should really be renamed, as well, as "character" is not a particularly great way to distinguish him from other Steve Elliots, especially considering he's not the only fictional Steve Elliot. Rorshacma (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing sources that would pass GNG for this character. The information can be covered in the main article for the tv series. I suppose it could be redirected but I doubt it would be searched. Rhino131 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 16:11, 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. Tone 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swapnalokam[edit]

Swapnalokam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's incomrehensible for me that a film with a notable director, notable cast and notable soundtrack contributor isn't notable, even though notability is not inherited. Sources must exist, probably in Telugu media of 1999. Geschichte (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search for reference did not find anything significant, as noted by Geschichte this may be due to langauge issues, but as the other language page also shows no indication of notability I don't see a path to assume that notability probably exist. Jeepday (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:13, 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. Tone 16:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Jaraya[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mohammed Jaraya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Been deleted twice before, and nothing has changed regarding his notability since the last deletion. While he has fought in Glory competitions, the standard is fighting for one of their world titles, which he has not. Fails WP:NKICK. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still not a notable kick boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing since the last AfD discussion that shows his notability has increased. He still fails to meet WP:NKICK and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is top 10 ranked fighter in Glory, so he meets the requirements. he is the most popular fighter in his division and has made his name in the kickboxing world as early as 18 years old. he is also extremely popular on social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.137.2.195 (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a new, and currently blocked, user you need to understand that no kickboxing organization's rankings have an impact on WP notability. Independent world rankings do. If you can provide evidence of such rankings, please do so and I will change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kickboxing athlete is presumed notable if they:

Fought for a world title of a major organization or promotion (K-1, WMC, ISKA, WAKO-Pro, Glory, It's Showtime, WKN, WBC Muaythai, PKA (through 1986), or WKA (through 2000)). Jaraya is fighting for the major organization Glory. that's enough according to the requirements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.129.62 (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Another new IP from the Netherlands. Fighting for a world title is not the same as fighting for a promotion. It's worth noting that he's ranked #8 in his division by Glory, but the fighter ranked #1 isn't even mentioned in Combat Press's world top 10. He's not close to meeting WP:NKICK. Papaursa (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. "Popular" is an ephemeral and unclassifiable metric, but his fan base is not in the millions. He's lost more than won in the past two years. He has about 24k followers on Facebook, and six (6) followers on Twitter. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information; he doesn’t use Facebook and Twitter. He only has a Instagram page withover 210.000 followers. He is a big name in kockboxing and Holland&Morocco. Clearly you guys don’t know a lot about the sport. 85.148.129.62 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. Delete since not notable by the professional standard or GNG. Salt because this article is recreated after every delete. gidonb (talk) 15:08, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animal (Hindi Film)[edit]

Animal (Hindi Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable future film, WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFF. Should be Draftified until release. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's already a draft at Draft:Animal (2021 film) with the nearly identical content. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Ab207's rationale. Kolma8 (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a film, it is about a tweet about a planned film with no actors or crew yet. Pikavoom (talk) 04:41, 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 15:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Curry (actor, born 1987)[edit]

Russell Curry (actor, born 1987) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A PROD was removed without explaination. My reason for why this article should be deleted is the same. It is simply too soon to have an article on this actor right now as he has not starred or directed Any notable productions and was just cast for a TV show that has not even started yet. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTALBALL. We really need to change the PROD policy; the fact that an IP can remove a PROD without explanation and it can't be added in again is ridiculous to me. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as best I can tell he may have one upcoming role that is significant in an notable production, but we need multiple such roles for actor notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 16:09, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Barua[edit]

Nick Barua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Successful businessman, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Tie[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cathy Tie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd like to revisit the previous AfD from a couple years ago. The promised improvements have not materialized, and this article remains promotional in tone. I am not sure that the sources relied upon for notability would be accepted today - Forbes 30 under 30 coverage, and a profile in a student magazine of a school she attended (making the coverage dependent). That leaves a single profile in CNN; not enough to establish notability. FalconK (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that her CNN featured article/profile is strong. Other existing sources include Fast company, and industry specialized publications, together provide strong evidence of notability based on ~4 being reliable sources. I also just added the Toronto Guardian article that describes her COVID-19 testing tool (the article pointed out by HouseOfChange). In regards to the Forbes reference, please note that Forbes "blog posts" by one of their many thousands of contributors (often paid for / sponsored) are not equivalent to Forbes 30 under 30 list which is staff verified and independent, hers is the latter and would qualify as reliable. The subject is also a recipient of a Thiel Fellowship, one of the most prestigious startup awards for young people, for which there was significant press, she is included in as a recipient. CosmicNotes (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete Struggling to see how winning a prize as an undergrad and setting up a business is sufficiently notable to get you an encyclopedia entry. Agree about the promotional tone StupidLookingKid (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC) — StupidLookingKid (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and newly created account. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I found more RS and removed some PROMO, so please per WP:HEY take a look at current article. Both 2018 and 2019 Forbes 30 under 30 (2 different categories) are by staff, not "contributors." HouseOfChange (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)]][reply]
So that Forbes 30 under 30 thing is impressive? Got to admit it strikes me a bit dull tbh (half the world must be named in those lists by now - what are the Forbes criteria?), but happy to accept it if it is a legit 'thing' StupidLookingKid (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC) — StupidLookingKid (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment It is widely considered to be very prestigious, the selection of recipients makes national news (example: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/innovation/six-irish-people-included-on-forbes-30-under-30-list-1.4205031) In regards to the selection process https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30-nominations/ "Reporters, editors and expert judges consider a variety of factors, including: funding, revenue, social impact, inventiveness and potential. Nominee shortlists are shared with each category's four-judge panel who select the final 30 listees in their assigned category." In a given field, there are a few million "under-30s" working in it, the award honors the top 30 in each field. On its own, Forbes 30 under 30 is not enough for notability per WP standards, however, taken together with her CNN profile, news feature in Fast Company, news feature in TechCo, and Theil fellowship news stories (more prestigious than Forbes)... together it strongly meets notability requirements with reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicNotes (talk • contribs) 01:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A search for "Forbes 30 under 30" lists in AfD will show that we do not generally assume notability based upon them. FalconK (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed, that "Forbes 30 under 30" alone does not provide notability, but taken together with the other news and awards cited, I think from that there is a strong case for notability here.
    • Sure, but what's out there is seriously lacking. Coverage in Fast Company is limited to a single paragraph in an article about the Thiel Fellowship. The Thiel Fellowship also doesn't automatically confer notability; though a few recipients are indeed notable, there seems to be a preponderance for many or most of them to have promotional and questionably sourced articles created about them. Tech.co doesn't appear to cover her at all - the only result on the site with her name is a listing of her name and company with no content. The CNN Business profile article is primarily an interview with her, relies heavily on direct quotations from her, and so is questionably independent - but it is also but one source, not enough to demonstrate significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. So what is left? FalconK (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Per GNG: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The article cites substantial coverage in Globe and Mail and Toronto Star, a photo and paragraph in Fast Company, all in 2015. Then in 2018, there is extremely detailed coverage by CNN when she became a partner at Cervin. This degree of coverage meets WP:BASIC. Notability can and should be deduced from policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, and plenty of significant coverage both included in the article and per search. WP:BASIC is met. Btw the nominator is a Paid AfD nominator?VocalIndia (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • VocalIndia's thoughts are welcomed but the accusation was unnecessary. FalconK seems to be a respected user with 17 years of editing experience here. Such accusations should include evidence or should be respectfully removed. The guidelines of Wikipedia are to assume good faith. CosmicNotes (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really Sorry to FalconK. I'm misunderstanding you because you are only puting AFD on many businesspersons. VocalIndia (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there a reason why this AfD remains open, looks like 3+ weeks old, I thought the policy is that they are closed or relisted by admins after ~7 days? CosmicNotes (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also angry on this bias at some AfDs. Some AfD closure are biased. They will not close until we get more delete votes. How Shameless admins. What is the community value of these AfDs? VocalIndia (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
VocalIndia, there appears to have been an issue transcluding this page to the AfD log; as far as I can tell, the discussion has only ever been listed for today January 22nd's log, which would explain why the admins that patrol AfD haven't closed it yet: it wasn't in the logs that they have been patrolling. If my assessment is correct, it actually shouldn't be closed until the 29th, when it's been properly listed for at least a week, at which point it can be closed normally. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was apparently due to a hiccup with the relisting script, during re-listing [21] the script gave up mid-way and didn't re-transclude or add a tag to this discussion. The discussion was originally correctly transcluded for an entire week so it may be closed – Thjarkur (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok, I am convinced by the 30 under 30 thing (and look forward to finding the Forbes 80 under 80 list). Am a bit of newb but agree that leaving a vote open seems a bit wrong. StupidLookingKid (talk) 18:55, 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 redirect to Grambling State Tigers. Fenix down (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GSU Soccer Complex (Grambling State)[edit]

GSU Soccer Complex (Grambling State) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was redirected to Grambling State Tigers for failing WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD; non-notable university football pitch with no significant coverage whatsoever outside of primary sources.

I had left an explanation, on the creator's talk page, of the reasons why I felt the article should be redirected and also suggested that the content could be merged into the parent article if absolutely necessary.

My redirect was reverted without explanation so I'm taking it to AfD to establish consensus as to whether this does warrant an article. In my view and in my experience, a football stadium is not exempt from notability guidelines. I would not oppose either a restoring of the redirect or a merge (as a last resort) of the sentences into the parent article, which is currently very small anyway. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it only because I believe it offers differentiation between itself and GSU Soccer Complex -Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any sources other than the university's own website covering this in depth? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close Nominator has only proposed a merge, not outright deletion. This should be discussed on the article talk page, not AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as per my nom, I would only consider merge as a last resort. Deletion is preferred. Redirect itself is debatable as it could be argued that this isn't a plausible search term. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the last part of my nom to clarify this a bit more as an AfD and not a requested merge now, thanks Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:18, 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 redirect to List of political parties in British Columbia#Historical parties. Sandstein 21:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation Party of British Columbia[edit]

Annexation Party of British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short-lived political party that never ran any candidates. Might merit a mention on Movements for the annexation of Canada to the United States. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Movements for the annexation of Canada to the United States. Definitely not notable enough to warrant its own article, but still notable enough to warrant mentioning in said article. Pladica (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Article does not have SIGCOV from IS RS. Does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT. No objection to a redirect.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   23:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For a merge to be useful, there must be something that is supported by sources to merge. The only one of the three sources still available is a blog in the Internet Archive that notes nothing more than the party name was once upon a time registered. That is not enough to support merging and definitely not enough to keep. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of political parties in British Columbia#Historical parties. Basically, I agree with Eggishorn immediately above, but I think it could be a plausible search term, and it is already mentioned on that list page. ~EdGl talk 21:35, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dude (company)[edit]

Hey Dude (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources used are all from a UK retailer. After a WP:BEFORE search, I believe there is no indecent and reliable coverage to suggest that this company is notable. WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY are not met. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have since added additional sources. Please note the original sources provided are in fact from the official company website as opposed to a retailer. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out. The difference is minimal: both are non-independent sources because they have an interest in promoting the subject. About the additional sources: it's not the product but the company that needs to be covered. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further sources provided focusing more on the company. Please review. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Motley Fool and LinkedIn? These are a far cry from reliable sources. The closest thing to a solid source is the promotional piece by Men's Journal. Please review WP:Rs and WP:IS before adding more sources to the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:39, 14 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, 22 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, North America1000 12:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on what I could find, their loafers are popular ("#1 loafer on Amazon" says Yahoo Sports), but sources are so spotty; either passing mentions or, since this is a store selling products, just advertising the shoe (articles with affiliate links). Nothing about the company; even the company's own "about" page says a lot without saying anything about concrete facts about its own history! ~EdGl talk 19:16, 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. Tone 16:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnett Springs, Kentucky[edit]

Barnett Springs, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found this one to be a very confusing case. There's no Barnett Springs described in Rennick's Adair County directory, although his index refers to it as a locale; locales generally fail WP:GEOLAND. Topos show three isolated buildings. GNIS states that Barnett Springs was also known as May, and cites that to Rennick, but Rennick doesn't make a connection between May and Barnett Springs. Instead, May is said to be another name of Parson, Kentucky, which was just a post office in a store with Mr. May being the postmaster. Newspapers.com didn't bring up anything meaningful for Barnett Springs for me, and neither did Google books. Google just brought up the standard automated pages created for every GNIS entry and some WP mirrors. I'm not seeing any indication this site ever had legal recognition, and the connection to May/Parson seems pretty tenuous. WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG don't seem to be met. Hog Farm Bacon 23:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 23:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 23:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:41, 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Street Railway Route 5 Delaware[edit]

Hamilton Street Railway Route 5 Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a bus route, does not meet WP:GNG. I would have redirected it to the main page, however the note the author left at the top of the page makes it clear the redirect would be reverted.  // Timothy :: talk  12:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  12:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  12:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Delete What the BLEEP is this? A bolded notice not to delete with smileys and no inline citations. It looks like a draft of an article that somehow made it to the "live" version of wikipedia. Should be deleted or merged to the HSR article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, better suited for CPTDB wiki than here Jumpytoo Talk 18:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete an awful-looking article about a blatantly non-notable subject shouldn’t even require a discussion. I would’ve just PRODed this one. Dronebogus (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I would even endorse an IAR speedy delete. Awful layout from top to bottom, clear as crystal GNG failure. SK2242 (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borderline speedy delete because the article is just that crap. I don't even need a rationale, just look at the article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero notability, would need a WP:TNT anyway. --Kinu t/c 09:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire. We do not indiscriminately keep articles about every individual surface (bus or streetcar) transit route in every city, this is not referenced to any evidence of the reliable source coverage about it in media that it would take to establish its topic as a special case of greater notability than the norm, and I don't even want to guess at where the creator ever got the idea that Wikipedia articles are ever supposed to look like this. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oppose a speedy because AFD is not cleanup but bus routes typically aren't notable and there's no indication that this is an exception. Smartyllama (talk) 20:43, 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. Tone 16:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Life of Nephi[edit]

The Life of Nephi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE, Wikipedia is not an IMdB mirror. (Previously PROD by Donaldd23) ~RAM (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~RAM (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:42, 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 merge to Forgotten Realms#Characters. Consensus to not keep. Opinion is split between merge and redirect, but redirect makes less sense as long as there is no mention of this character at the target location, so I'm going with a (very selective) merge for now. Sandstein 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jarlaxle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jarlaxle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar (there are few passing mentions like [22] but no serious, in-depth analysis I can find). The article is 99% plot-summary fancruft. Reception is limited to a paragraph mention on a "Game Rant's 2020 "10 Must-Have NPCs In Dungeons & Dragons Lore To Make Your Campaigns Awesome" ". Previous AfD was keep even through half the votes were based on an "argument" stating that " Wikipedia consensus that the major characters in novels or novel series are inherently notable" - even through of course there was no such consensus back then and certainly there is none right now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Forgotten Realms#Characters per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Forgotten Realms#Characters. Game Rant is an unreliable source per Wikiproject VG. Unable to find any secondary sources of substance in Google Books or Google Scholar so no WP:SIGCOV, but the character has played a very prolific role in dozens of Forgotten Realms-themed novels as well as appearances in other media, so per WP:ATD and WP:CCOS the character should have a paragraph's worth of an entry in the redirect target, starting with this source. Finally, the essay Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is as much as of a global consensus as "Wikipedia consensus that the major characters in novels or novel series are inherently notable" is, which is...none. The only required guideline for consideration here is GNG. Haleth (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not formed an opinion yet myself, but wanted to point out that this PhD thesis, The Symbolical Functions of Space in Fantasy: Towards a Topography of the Genre (which is in English despite its French abstract and Google link title), has character analysis of Jarlaxle on pages 112-114. Daranios (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daranios, Nice find, but as far as I can tell (pdf is not searchable?) the character is mentioned on p.112 and 114 (not 113) and there is hardly any analysis of them, it seems like just a plot summary. But if I missed something significant, I'd appreciate it if you could quote it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Piotrus: Jarlaxle is the first word on p. 113. I don't know the books, so in some places I can't tell for sure, but much sounds like analysis rather than plot summary to me: If The Dark Elf Trilogy was a game of chess, Jarlaxle would be the Knight - "limited in distances but its erratic movements alÏow this piece to go over obstacles and...to change direction." Is that in the book and can therefore be plot summary? "Jarlaxle ...changes camp at will, depending on his interests". Maybe plot summary - but wouldn't I be accused of WP:OR if I presented this as summary without a secondary source? Jarlaxle is not associated with a House but the open streets, an "indication of his freedom of movement". Characteristic of him are his "subtle manoeuvers". He is associated with Dinin, together these are the counterpart of Drizzt and Zaknafein. Jarlaxle stands against the system of Menzoberranzan. In the end he decides not to follow Drizzt (against his orders, I assume) - plot summary - because he is aware that that is ultimately in Menzoberranzan's better interest, that he is aware that Drizzt has an important role for Menzoberranzan to play (against the current status of power) - is that plot summary? That's what I see in there. Daranios (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Daranios, When I was determining the notability of Star Wars' Old Republic which I AfD (and then withdrew the nom as I concluded I made a mistake) at first I saw just plot summary, then I noticed the sources actually do a comparative comparison of the plot summary to real-world republics (Roman, German) and do so at length. And recently we discussed Wulfgar, where in the end good sources were also found, like a comparison of him to Conan (IIRC). In the case of the thesis cited here, I don't see anything that goes beyond a plot summary - no analysis invoking some social science concepts, no meaningful comparison to notable entities, at least, nothing that goes beyond a sentence. He is mentioned in that text few times, but it seems to me to be a passing mention only (once or twice on two or three pages each). Here's a test: if we deleted each reference to him, would the source text (chapter, even) be affected? In the case of the Republic of Wulfgar sources, I think they'd be. In the case of the source here - not at all. Which is why I conclude that this source is not 'in-depth' even if we stretch the definition (and despite what some people think, I am happy to stretch it in favor of saving a topic to even as little as 'a dedicated paragraph'). Here I think we don't even have a dedicated sentence (that's not a plot summary). Anyway, I hope my explanation above is of help to you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comments: Going by your comments in the discussion, you withdrew because the emergent consensus was unanimously against your AfD proposal, and with all honesty you were quite petulant about it. Since AFD stands for Articles for Deletion, you shouldn't go to AFD unless your goal is to call for a motion to delete the article's page because you are certain that its issues are insurmountable and unsalvageable, since there is always a possibility that the article will ultimately be deleted, regardless of how well or ill-informed the participating consensus could turn out to be as far as the extent of the subject topic's potential coverage in reliable sources is concerned. Haleth (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haleth, why do you continue in discussing contributors here? Your stance doesn't seem to align well with AGF/NPA. Please focus on discussing the topic at question (the nominated article), not the nominator. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my point or vote on the topic, and my comments are in response to his deletion rationale of this discussion, since Piotrus brought up his own stance from a prior AfD on his own accord. You, on the other hand, have contributed nothing to this discussion so far other then singling me out for comment. Haleth (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I appreciate you providing an explanation and your openness to consider sources. I have the impression, though, that you are overlooking sections where the name of the topic does not appear: I count six mentions of the name Jarlaxle in the three pages, rather than "once or twice", and he is also referred to as "the mercenary", etc. I am not very convinced of the test you suggest, as it can easily exclude valid information that is relevant to the article, but only tangentially related to the main topic of the author. I suggest a different test: If I wrote in my words what is in the source, and only gave the primary sources as references, would I be critizised for WP:OR? If that was the case, than there seems to have been some kind of research done by the author. The amount of analysis can of course be debated. Daranios (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daranios, "If I wrote in my words what is in the source, and only gave the primary sources as references, would I be criticised for WP:OR". It is a good test, but here, the answer is 'no', since I think this source doesn't go beyond a plot summary. I don't think it is analytical enough that the author describes the subject as a mercenary or describes him as subtle. That's just a plot summary. Analysis, to me, would exist if the author said something like 'Jarlaxe is an example of a Sheaksperian tragicomic character mixed with Horward's classic barbarian, with a sprinkle of postfeminist character building". I hope you can see the difference. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: I have now added what I see in that secondary source as analysis. It also contains plot summary elements, but I think these are necessary to get the analysis part here. I'll readily admit that this does not reach the level you posted as an example; Jarlaxle is not compared to Conan, but to the Knight - I wonder how these two are ranked in global importance. With all these caveats, let's do the test: If I took away de Launay's name and reworded the direct quotations, I still would not feel comfortable to let this paragraph stand with only giving Exile as a source. Would you? Daranios (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daranios, Well, you are right that there would be some OR/editorializing. Let's take the 'Knight' example. It is original, as in, we, the editors, can't make such a comparison. de Launay makes it, and it's her original contribution. But it is a substantial analysis? I don't think so, it's few sentences, and as you say, it's done in the context of the comparison of the book trilogy's plot, which is the main subject. What I'd recommend is to rescue your work and merge the paragraph to the Trilogy in question, as IMHO really what she is analyzing is not Jarlaxe as the books he appears in (and correct me if I am wrong but he is not the main character, but just a supporting one in those, right?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: To quote the secondary source found by Haleth, Jarlaxle is a "popular supporting character", indeed. Which, like being the main topic of a secondary source or not, is not a criterion for WP:GNG. The quote may be somewhat relevant for the discussion you have with Dream Focus and Haleth below. I myself then stick with the result of my test and my opinion that a merge is fine, but keep is also warranted, and slightly preferred by me. I curiously wait how the decision will be in the end. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect per Haleth. We need coverage in a reliable source, and we need that coverage to be significant. There's nothing here that meets all that criteria. I would accept a redirect if someone wants to clean-up and write some primary sourced information at another relevant article. But Wikipedia cannot have stand-alone articles without any reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and mention at Forgotten Realms#Characters, per Boz. Someone can expand it there if they find more sources, per WP:ATD. Archrogue (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to Forgotten Realms#Characters, since he is not currently mentioned there. While the sources cited are not enough for him to pass WP:GNG, they are enough for a mention there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Forgotten Realms#Characters as the character was at before Piotrus removed him and others who have articles [23]. Erasing four characters with articles from it, then sending two to AFD, and tagging another for notability, seems like the wrong order to do things. Anyway, the character is a major character and has a significant part to the plot of some of the books he is in. He should have information about him listed there if this article can be saved from deletion. I don't know what reliable sources out there would review the character. Dream Focus 00:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dream Focus, The problem with that target is that this section makes the claim of discussing 'notable' characters - but I asked for a reliable source that lists 'notable' characters, and none was presented. For Jarlaxe, which independent source - any source - calls him significant in the setting? In general, without such a source, notable characters are the ones that are notable in our understanding and have their own articles. Those can be listed there. The ones that fail to AfD have no place there. Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms characters - recreating this list in the article would be clearly against the spirit of that discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those familiar with the book series can determine which characters are notable enough to be mentioned. Just like the character list for any fictional series does, you use common sense, no one is going to mention all the major characters and specifically tell you they are significant ones. Dream Focus 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed with User:Dream Focus per WP:PAGEDECIDE. There are plenty of sources that at least mentions in passing Jarlaxle's in-universe significance, obviously not enough to justify a standalone article for the topic per WP:GNG, which by the way is not relevant when deciding what to include in such a short list. Being considered notable and being noteworthy enough to fulfill WP:CCOS and warrant a mention as part of a larger topic is not the same thing. Haleth (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dream Focus, Wikipedia editors should not judge what is 'important'. That's OR/editorializing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Each and every time a Wikipedia editor carries out an edit or expresses an opinion on anything, that is exercising their judgment on what is or isn't important or relevant, as long as it is verifiable. I don't believe Dream Focus meant that editors familiar with the source material can post facts, allegations, and ideas about the subject topic for which no reliable, published sources exist. Haleth (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge: I think the secondary sources provided so far are enough to give a paragraph of reception/character analysis. The publication history/appearances in other media are another section of non-plot-summary information. So the minimum requirements of WP:GNG and WP:ALLPLOT can be fulfilled. Given that there is a worthwhile but not a huge amount of treatment in secondary sources, I also have not problem with a proper merge. Daranios (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I love R.A. Salvatore's novels as much as the next guy and have done so for decades ([24][25]), but this is pretty ridiculous. The article contains no real-world information, is written almost entirely in "in-universe" mode, and has been so for years, despite the no-doubt substantial good-faith efforts on the part of the four people who !voted keep last time (actually, one was an LTA sock, one appears to have edited almost exclusively in the "Dungeons & Dragons AFD" topic area, and one largely stopped editing shortly afterward). If all these years have been unable to turn up enough significant real-world coverage to produce an encyclopedic article, then I think it's time to accept that there is no evidence of voter fraud and allow a peaceful transition of power. As for the redirect target, I'm not sure: List of Forgotten Realms characters is currently itself a redirect to a short bulleted list consisting almost exclusively of bare-bones descriptions of characters who are much better-known than Jarlaxle; certainly, none of the content of this overly-detailed, almost-entirely-unsourced article should be merged in there without care. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Off-topic and my position more or less aligns with yours, but I am sure a better inside joke could be made instead of a borderline-tasteless analogy to Trumpism (which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand), considering the events of earlier this month. Haleth (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... I don't think there's any actual connection between the Realms and the writings of R.A. Salvatore, or Wikipedia's coverage thereof, and Trumpism/white supremacy, but the (false) connection has certainly been drawn in the past by (bad-faith? trolling? ignorant?) redditors specifically targeting me (i.e., the fact that I had edited an article with the title "Wulfgar", combined with my username's reference to my year of birth also apparently being a dog-whistle among American and German neo-Nazi groups, was used as "evidence" that I was X, Y and Z), and really I wasn't thinking about the events in Washington so much as alluding to the refusal to accept reality or read the writing on the wall, which is a quality definitely shared by the Trumpists and the people who reflexively !vote "keep" in all these AFDs on fictional characters.
That said, you are right, and I probably should have been more thoughtful about the events in the District of Columbia and elsewhere in the United States in recent weeks, and I apologize for this oversight. I hope this clears it up.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Forgotten Realms#Characters. I've been working on the list & I think this character would fit there. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Forgotten Realms#Characters for now - If someone wanted to create an entry in that section actually using reliable, secondary sources that would be fine, but there really is not much currently in the article that could be merged. The vast majority of the information here is completely unsourced, and the few sources that are being used that are not primary are really just not very good or in-depth on the character. Character lists are generally important parts of coverage on fictional topics, but the information in them is not exempt from the basic tenets of needing to be supported by WP:RS. Rorshacma (talk) 17:14, 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Lighting[edit]

Hidden Lighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a product/feature on certain car models. Article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT. Couldn't find a suitable redirect target, not sure if the article title would be a good redirect for search.  // Timothy :: talk  10:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  10:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  10:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to show it's more than a simple design feature some cars have. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's about a feature specific to Hyundai vehicles. I tried to search for "Hyundai Hidden Lighting" among other terms to see if a move might be better, but I didn't find too many reliable sources (there was this one, and maybe a couple more) As this is a feature specific to Hyundai, it may be better-suited to Hyundai Motor Company or the articles for the vehicles using the tech.  A S U K I T E   15:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very hard to understand to me. –Cupper52Discuss! 11:14, 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 delete. Subject does not appear to meet notability criteria at this time. Lengthy argument about the subject's accomplishments is not a substitute for reliable third-party sources. RL0919 (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Middleton[edit]


Reggie Middleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page for cryptocurrency promoter. No evidence of notability, either under WP:GNG or any more specific criterion. WP:BEFORE shows extensive coverage in cryptocurrency sites, but almost nothing in RSes - just passing mentions and occasional columns by the subject; none of the sort of coverage required for a WP:BLP. Needs strong, mainstream sourcing, strong enough to support the presence of a BLP, to avoid deletion. David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderators/editors have been extremely discriminatory in regards to Reggie Middleton article by granting business news citation RS status to MakerDao and other entities, yet state that it is not RS for or Reggie Middleton. Either business news sites are or are not reliable sources. They cannot be reliable for one, and not the other. It was also mentioned that his business media appearances were mere mentions. This is far from the truth. He has won the CNBC Stock Draft challenge two years in a row, and this has been cited with video directly off of the CNBC web site - with video totally at least 15 minutes long. He has been on the show dozens of times with extensive interviews. The same goes for Bloomberg, RT, etc. These are all RS, and they are consistently removed. He has been credited with inventing decentralized finance and explained his invention in detail on CNBC and RT, multiple times in extensive interviews. Those interview have been included with links directly to those media properties, and they have been respectively delete, yet Bloomberg and CNBC articles are considered RS throughout Wikipedia for other subjects. This is abject discrimination. He has been feature in full length documentaries by renown and accredited media outlets, i.e.VPRO our of Europe, with links directly to those properties movies, yet those links have been deleted. All of his accomplishments post 2014 have been removed. The moderator who opened this deletion request has been corrected many times, yet shows palpable bias. His most egregious act (out of very, very many) is his deletion of the granting of a patent application valid in 38 jurisdictions around the world, including the majority of the G20. It was granted by the 4th largest economy in the world and one of the most respected patent offices in the world. A quick primer on the art, a granted patent citation was included, and a patent is the highest possible level of proof of invention, inventive step, innovation and industrial utility, yet the moderator above deletes reference to it repeatedly with the reason being lack of RS. This is despite deep precedence of elaborate explanation of inventors & inventions on Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors. It is incredulous to even allude to the fact that the Japan Patent Office is not a reliable source, then turn around to say some reporter at Bloomberg is a reliable source. Even so, Middleton has plenty of Bloomberg sources as well. If you think the material is biased, then by Wiki's own guidelines edit it for neutrality, but gross and rampant discrimination is not neutrality. There are a lot of Wiki users who have witnessed what this man has done, and is doing, and it looks downright horrible. He apparently has an implicit (explicit?) bias and motivation, for it has been brought up that he is an author of a crypto critical book, "Attack of the 50 ft Blockchain". I implore all to safeguard the credibility of wiki by making sure it remains neutral and unbiased. The mere mention of deleting the Reggie Middleton article, or disallowing a raft of highly independent and credible sources (a global superpower's patent office - come on guys...) as not reliable is a travesty, particularly when they are allowed elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberethno (talk • contribs) 12:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC) — Uberethno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Corroborated by CNBC, Bloomberg, CNN, BBC, RT AND his blog "Boom Bust" Reggie called the collapse of bear sterns 2 months before it happened as well as the fall of lehman brothers before anyone had a clue. Hes sold his research to institutional investors since 2007 and VERY early on caught on to the crypto space.
Infact he was so early and had such a breadth of knowledge in finance already, that he invented the first DEFI in 2013, filed his earliest patent on it in 2015 and was awarded the patent by japan late in to 2020.
Having recognized and expressed the need for disintermediation in financial markets (middlemen fees taking most of people's returns) then actually being the FIRST EVER to solve that problem through Veritaseum - i'm seeing him as a VERY notable, significant, INTERESTING, and Unique/Unusual addition to Wikipedia Bios!
When you call history before it happens, then make history by innovating the way things are done... that deserves a wiki bio at least right?
Sounds Notable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxwellSwanson (talk • contribs) 08:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC) — MaxwellSwanson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Reading here the first response from the Moderator, he is wrongly saying that editors are using as sources cryptocurrency sites(ironically on the whole Wiki article there are very few references to cryptocurrencies, rather it's mostly about Macroeconomy and Technology) and at the same time he cries for a lack of mainstream sourcing( isn't CNBC, Bloomberg, the Huff Post mainstream enough? ).Also it's not understandable how come the Moderator proposes to delete the entire Wiki page, soon as the paragraph on the JPO patent has been added(coincidence??), with a direct source to the JPO's patent file and registration number, while still continuing to use the excuse of lack of mainstream sourcing(on a separate discussion I've asked him twice what does the JPO patent paragraph and patent link have as wrong, he continued with the lack of independant sourcing rhetoric. It would had been more tolerable if Moderator would had just suggested(not deleted) the edits/corrections needed to be done instead of deleting all content; ironically he left as the last essay that on Aug 13th 2019 SEC has charged Reggie Middleton of fraud, but Moderator had deleted all the essays and docs as of the Defendant (clearly a sign of heavy bias from the Moderator's side). I'd want to hear from the Moderator how come he considers as promotional the mentioning of some Economic Forecasts , while on most Wiki pages of famous economists (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouriel_Roubini#Economic_forecast ) there are amazingly lenghty paragraphs of detailed forecasts...yet Moderator doesn't call them promotional or excessively sourced. Also I found it disturbing that Wikipedia let's this Moderator have a say on pages like Reggie's Middleton or on the DeFi page, while on his personal profile has the mentioning of a book "Attack of the 50 ft Blockchain" and with clear biased opinions against the Cryptocurrency and Blockchain sector. There is a stark Conflict of Interest between this Moderator and the pages he censor. He should be dealing with other kind of Topics, not with a biased topic.Mucimucimuc (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC) — Mucimucimuc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I don't understand why this page is up for deletion, it has plenty of verified sources, the most crucial one being the granting of a patent by the Japan Patent Office for Reggie Middleton as you can see clearly here[1] . Reginald Middleton is clearly named on the patent as you can see and there is an overview of what it covers - "Between 2 parties with no or little trust relationship, there is no special technical knowledge of the underlying transfer mechanism for any distance. A device, system, and method that allows for the establishment of a value transfer contract, contingent on input from third parties or third party participation, and which can be enforced, and optionally can be substituted, replaced, revised, revised, and the like. It is also possible to generate such a value transfer without involving exposure to the merchant risk and the expensive third party intermediaries that have heretofore been required." It describes what has become known as 'Decentralised Finance' - a zero-trust value-transfer mechanism. Granting of a patent is the highest accreditation of originality and absolutely qualifies someone as an 'Inventor' or as 'Notable'. Why is this not taken into account? Not to mention all the other achievements and appearances on mainstream news networks. I would need to see very clear reasoning on the moderators side before I understood such a decision. Please provide it immediately. Edjohn46 (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC) — Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I would like to add further comments and citations to this discussion, I believe they are all 'Reliable Sources'. Reggie Middleton as a contributor to the Huffington Post, almost 20 articles [2], An entire article on Reggie Middleton by Forbes [3], Reggie Middleton on Bloomberg [4], Reggie Middleton on VPRO(Dutch Public Broadcasting) 22:30 - 24:45, 40:00 - 41:00 [5], and again in this documentary 31:15 - 37:15 [6], Reggie Middleton winning CNBC's stock draft [7], and again on CNBC here [8] and here [9], and many appearances on RT's Keiser Report [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Please let me know if any of these are inappropriate to use as sources for a Wikipedia page. Edjohn46 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)— Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • None of these are about Middleton. They are Middleton as pundit, and the relevant criterion for the notability you're claiming there is WP:CREATOR, which those don't meet. Also, RT is a deprecated source that can't be used as evidence of notability. I urge you to read up on Wikipedia sourcing and notability rules, you're repeatedly saying things that don't address them at all - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CREATOR - "Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Does appearing on many mainstream media channels such as CNBC, Huffington Post and Bloomberg not count for the first point? The Forbes article is entirely about him. Does holding a patent not count for the second point? I will cite the patent once again as you are still not addressing it and I'm very confused why not.[1] Surely a patent is the highest evidence of notability? I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Edjohn46 (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)— Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • No, it just means he's a pundit. Where are the biographical articles about Middleton? And no, anyone can apply for a patent - Surely a patent is the highest evidence of notability? is a nonsensical statement - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are quite correct that anyone can apply for a patent. Where you are completely wrong is that this patent has been GRANTED. Therefore the invention must meet certain criteria, such as novelty, usefulness and non-obviousness. There is a vast difference between a patent application and patent which has been granted. If you had actually bothered to check the source you would have seen that without me having to spell it out for you here. If you need more information on what a patent actually is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent . You keep calling him a 'pundit' in a derogatory manner, when he actually is a journalist and author (as referenced by his contributions to HuffPost which I have cited) and a financial analyst (as referenced by his many financial calls on reputable news sources such as Bloomberg and CNBC which I have also cited). And anyway, a pundit just means a journalist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pundit and so is covered under the aforementioned WP:CREATOR. I have clearly laid out a case for the Wikipedia page of 'Reggie Middleton' to be maintained. I believe it is you who is not making any sense. Edjohn46 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)— Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The mod — Mucimucimuc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm flabbergasted to read the Moderator's last comments("anyone can apply for a patent"), without understanding that the JPO patent mentioned before the censorship, it was granted(not only applied or filed) and then here proved with a registration number and all details using as source the direct link of the JPO office. Also not clear the Moderator's definition of "Pundit" when it could be applied to any person doing a significant work, of being famous and to appear on mainstream media sources. With this kind of logic he should be using the same logic as in many notorious economists,analysts,journalists etc... Yet Moderator ,once again,fails to clearly justify the full censorship of the Wiki pageMucimucimuc (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)— Mucimucimuc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete – The high volume of reasonably presumptive WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:COI editing, both past and present, that went into this WP:BLP article (as well as the associated disruptive & promotional edits at Decentralized finance) makes its much more difficult for any uninvolved, good-faith editor to try and sift through and salvage this article. If it even meets notability guidelines for a BLP to begin with. Therefore, I say WP:Blow it up and start over. If notability does exist, the heavily involved editor(s) should take the time to learn what WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability means and then start with a clean slate if they believe the subject is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Also see WP:Delete the junk for more reasoning on why it's better to start from scratch.
    –– HiddenLemon // talk 00:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to state for the record that this is my only wikipedia account, I have no investments with Reggie Middleton or his companies and no one asked me to be here. I ask the same question to you as I did before - does holding a GRANTED patent and being a widely known journalist, author and financial analyst meet the criteria for WP:Notability? Is the Japan Patent Office considered a 'Reliable Source'? Are CNBC, Bloomberg and Forbes 'Reliable Sources'? Do the links that I have provided for those sources meet the criteria for WP:Verifiability? I would be happy to rewrite the whole wikipedia page if I could be sure that David Gerard wouldn't put another strike against it because I feel that he: has a WP:COI due to writing biased books about blockchain and Bitcoin; doesn't understand the difference between a patent application and a granted patent and the significance of the latter; did not adequately research the sources I provided and so made erroneous comments about their nature. These points make him unsuitable to be a moderator for this wikipedia page. I will happily submit to any uninvolved, good-faith editor for my re-write. Thank you for your time. Edjohn46 (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)— Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • The four of you just write in the same style at the same length with the same quirks making the same bad arguments repeatedly - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even someone with a basic grasp of linguistics could see that that is not the case. You have displayed yourself to be completely biased in this matter. Once again you have ignored the main point - does holding a GRANTED patent and being a widely known journalist, author and financial analyst meet the criteria for WP:Notability? Is the Japan Patent Office considered a 'Reliable Source'? Are CNBC, Bloomberg and Forbes 'Reliable Sources'? Do the links that I have provided for those sources meet the criteria for WP:Verifiability? I am happy to discuss my reasoning with any moderator (excluding yourself, as I fear it would not be productive). Edjohn46 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)— Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
          • The patent link is evidence that the patent exists; it does not confer notability (you don't get an article for filing a patent). The links you gave are appearances as a pundit, not biographical information about Middleton showing his notability as a journalist. You can ignore me pointing this out to you, but it's still how Wikipedia notability rules work - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the patent has been granted for something that has it's own Wikipedia page i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_finance , does that confer notability? In your understanding the invention should have a wikipedia page but the inventor should not, and nothing about that inventor should be mentioned on the invention page? That makes no sense. I'm afraid you truly do not grasp the contents or impact of the patent because you have not read it. Edjohn46 (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)— Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
              • DeFi is not a patentable invention, it’s an abstract term describing a category of applications. You will need numerous substantive RS’s to verifiably claim that this person “invented” DeFi, which you’re welcome to try and prove on a fresh Draftspace article if/when this page is deleted. HiddenLemon // talk 18:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • But this is exactly why I'm sounding like a broken record, because you are both missing the point. The patent has been granted for a zero-trust decentralised value transfer system. This is the overview "Between 2 parties with no or little trust relationship, there is no special technical knowledge of the underlying transfer mechanism for any distance. A device, system, and method that allows for the establishment of a value transfer contract, contingent on input from third parties or third party participation, and which can be enforced, and optionally can be substituted, replaced, revised, revised, and the like. It is also possible to generate such a value transfer without involving exposure to the merchant risk and the expensive third party intermediaries that have heretofore been required." This is literally a patent for the whole of Decentralised Finance! I don't need multiple sources, I just need one, the patent itself! If you would only read it you would understand. But I guess that's not your job as a moderator, or is it? Have you read the patent? Edjohn46 (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)— Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
                  • I'm not a moderator and yes, I have read it. The patent is so vague, abstract, theoretical, etc. that I'm not surprised that it was rejected twice for a lack of clarity. Whatever the reason for it being granted on the third try, it still doesn't prove that Middleton "invented" DeFi or anything else for that matter. With a patent so broadly construed as "a zero-trust decentralised value transfer system" or as a "patent for the whole of Decentralised Finance," you may as well be trying to claim that Reggie Middleton is Satoshi Nakamoto. That doesn't even consider the fact that concept and term, DeFi, existed before the patent application was submitted. HiddenLemon // talk 06:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You're saying things over and over that don't address the issue. You're doing what's called at Wikipedia original research - you're claiming the patent is sufficient evidence for the claim you're making, but you keep not producing independent, reliable, verifiable, third-party sources that you could cite to make this claim. Not that that would necessarily rate an article for Middleton either. So you're harping on a point that isn't how anything at Wikipedia works, and doesn't do the work you want it to do to make Middleton rate an article. I urge you yet again to read Wikipedia sourcing, content and notability policies, and come up with arguments that address them - instead of typing words and words and words that just don't address them. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not an argument strategy that will do well for you - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 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. Consensus keep, especially with the sources provided. They should be included in the article, though. Tone 16:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struldbrugg[edit]

Struldbrugg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Old literary neologism (if such a thing is not a contradiction...). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, the word is occasionally used but either in plot summaries or a case could be made it is a form of WP:DICTDEF and a rare neologism (but there is no analysis of the term itself, the fact that the word is occasionally used doesn't make it notable, as explained by GNG - we don't have WP:Notability (neologisms) to offer any further insight). PROD (and notability tag) removed with no rationale. Sigh. PS. I did consider proposing a merger to Luggnagg (a related concept but of dubious notability itself anyway) but the article is pretty much unreferenced and very WP:ORish too, so there is nothing to merge in the current version anyway. Maybe a redirect, but since the notability tag was contested, I expect a redirect would be as well, hence the need for AfD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC) PPS. I should also caution that the 'Struldbrugg story' is likely notable and deserves an article written about it - but it should not be confused with the narrower topic of 'Struldbrugg race' which is the subject of the current article (and hence the nomination). What is notable here is the story and its literary analysis, but this tiny under-referenced and confusingly structured article tries to argue that the fictional race is notable, and as such it merits a WP:TNT treatment, with no prejudice to someone writing about the 'Struldbrugg story', more commonly referred to in studies as 'Struldbrugg episode', and redirecting this term there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is 20 years old!
  • Keep The PROD process is only for uncontroversial deletion and it seems outrageous that such a respectable literary topic should be treated in this contemptuous way. Here's a selection of sources demonstrating the topic's notability. These demonstrate that WP:BEFORE has not been followed as the nomination and PROD claimed and so either WP:CIR or WP:HONEST applies:
  1. Fear of Death in Gulliver’s Travels
  2. Gulliver and the Struldbruggs
  3. Of Struldbruggs, sugar, and gatekeepers
  4. Swift's Struldbruggs, Progress, and the Analogy of History
  5. Swift's Struldbruggs
  6. The Struldbruggs, the Houyhnhnms, and the Good Life
  7. Swift's Immortals
  8. A Possible Source for Swift's Struldbrugs?
  9. The Allegory of Luggnagg and the Struldbruggs in "Gulliver's Travels"
  10. The Struldbrugs of Luggnagg and an age-old problem foretold
  11. The Struldbruggs and the changing language of aging in Swift's world
  12. Eunsu Kang's Struldbrugg
  13. How Swift's old-age horrors came true
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, None of your sources demonstrate that the concept is discussed beyond WP:DICTDEF usage. But I admit there is some confusion here (which in hindsight I should've addressed in the opening nomination), as Gulliver's Travels's Part 3 is titled "A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan", and Swift's work have been subject to significant literary analysis. This means that there is a considerable discussion of the "Struldbrugg episode" from this part) or such. But this simply contributes to the notability of Gulliver's Travels, which needs much expansion and perhaps even a subarticle for each of its main parts. But we should not confuse the discourse of the 'Struldbrugg episode' with the notability of the fictional term. What is notable here is the real-life 'Struldbrugg story' (a piece of fiction written by Swift), not the fictional Struldbrugg race of immortal (but aging) humanoids. The literary analysis cited by you above is about the story, not the race. PS. I did consider whether the article could be rescued by being rewritten into a discussion of the 'Struldbrugg story' but the problem is that next to nothing in the current confusing, semi-off topic and underreferenced stub is worth saving and so WP:TNT treatment is best. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If one reads the policy WP:DICTDEF, rather than just making a vague wave towards it, one finds that it explains the difference between a dictionary entry and an encyclopedia article. A dictionary focusses on the word qua word – "its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages" &c. Neither our article nor the sources listed show much interest in the word, which appears to have been invented by Swift. Their focus is on the concept – the clever satire of Swift which is now seen to be prescient. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about all aspects of Swift's conception. My !vote stands.
  • SPEEDY KEEP This nomination is flat out ridiculous. This hasn't been a neologism since 1726 when it was used in one for the most well-known classic novels of all time. Notable... *cough*. Additionally, the page itself links to recent uses in major publications. Nom is wasting our time linking to subject specific notability guidelines that don't even exist. Twice! After the dead link to non-existent Neologism guidelines, we also get treated to a 2nd link (to fiction guidelines), a page which states as it's very first sentence... and I quote, "There is no special guideline for the notability of fictional elements on Wikipedia". Sillyness. Deleteopedia (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)----<--- — Deleteopedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just a ping to User:PatGallacher and User:Toughpigs who (as I've just noticed) in a recent discussion at Talk:Gulliver's_Travels#Merger_proposal suggested a merger. I am still not sure which content here is rescuable, outside of the lead perhaps (it is unreferenced but that can be remedy, it doesn't seem errnoeus). But as soon as we move beyond the first sentence or two I fear this article descends into ORish territory, and the main 'referenced' part, which just cites some newspapers using the term, is pure trivia/SYNHT. The topic of 'Struldbrugg episode' is notable, but as I noted above, I really doubt there's much to rescue here. Blowing this up and restarting from scratch seems advisable (this also reminds me to what happened to such messes as future in fiction, which I then rewrote - maybe I'll do this here too one day...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Piotrus. There's nothing other than short WP:DICTDEF style mentions which aren't enough to prove notability. There isn't significant coverage in reliable third party sources. I would support including a dictionary definition at a relevant article about the fiction if someone bothers to add one. But I can't call for a merge if we're talking about a section that only exists hypothetically. Either way there isn't sufficient coverage to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. Jontesta (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have look at those easily visible portions of the articles cited by Andrew (It's currently impractical for me to access them completely for the AfD). #1, 2 , 4, and 6 seem to unambigously discuss not just the chapter, but the imaginary creatures. I think #13 does also. That's enough for an article. Piotrus says an expanded article can be written, but there's no reason not to do it by expanding this one. It's not so bad the TNT is applicable. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and the sources provided by Andrew. The nominator's recurring inappropriate use of PROD does not warrant an explanation for the de-PROD per current guidelines and norms, and misrepresents the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) essay as a "requirement". Haleth (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ~ HAL333 22:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I discovered this article through the pipe "a fate worse than death", and it was a great read. Think this is sufficiently passes WP:GNG and we don't use essays for requirement. Enjoyer — talk 06:36, 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syeda Hira Fatima Naqvi[edit]

Syeda Hira Fatima Naqvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recent PhD (2018), h index of 2 according to Google Scholar. No evidence of meeting WP:NPROF. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not remotely close to passing WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Assistant professor, does not pass WP:Prof. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tagged this for academic notability while it was a draft but the article creator pushed ahead and moved it to mainspace themselves. Single-digit citations in a high-citation field mean no pass of WP:PROF#C1 and no other suggestion of notability is present. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. does not meet notability guidelines.Webmaster862 (talk) 03:27, 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. Tone 16:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muthu (1976 film)[edit]

Muthu (1976 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources are RS except this. But this article should be deleted for the same reason various other creations of User:Vaidyasr have been deleted; this film lacks sources, and fails WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 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. Tone 16:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Schoolland[edit]

Ken Schoolland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found during cleanup after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Zhao Schoolland. This one fails WP:NACADEMIC. Not a full professor, and the bibliography consists mainly of newspaper pieces. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Scopus has indexed, at best, 2 articles by this person and an h-index of 1, so clearly he does not meet NPROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. His book Shogun's Ghost has multiple published reviews but I'd need to see reviews of multiple books to be convinced of WP:AUTHOR notability and I couldn't find any reviews for the other book listed in the article, The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn with no comment supporting deletion. RL0919 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Dog Breeders Association[edit]

American Dog Breeders Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Completely non-notable breed club for the American Pit Bull Terrier that purports to be a kennel club. An extensive search found only a single source, already cited on the page, that comes anywhere close to meeting WP:SIGCOV, [26], and that’s debatable. Otherwise there are just a few mentions in a couple of books, [27][28] and the online Encyclopædia Britannica on their pit bull page. Cavalryman (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, upon reflection this is a viable search term, I will work with the page contributors to improve the sourcing, and if unable then a future merger with APBT may be an option. Cavalryman (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - It passes GNG. I can't recall all of the article's history, but Justlettersandnumbers cited a source or two, and Wbm1058 helped with a merge/technical issue after a rework (and a prior CSD failed). There was a copyvio concern which caused me to rework the article. This AfD might be a candidate for a snow close if the nom agrees. Atsme 💬 📧 05:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Justlettersandnumbers re-ping...Atsme 💬 📧 05:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know the details of the nominator's "extensive search", but my quick Google Books search finds lots of sources at least mentioning this organization, and it seems like more than a couple of them have significant mentions. "In 1909, the American Dog Breeders Association was formed and also accepted the American Pit Bull Terrier into its registry. Finally, in 1936, the American Kennel Club accepted the breed as the Staffordshire Terrier." So, for that one (controversial) breed, they are perhaps more notable than "Kennel Club". The Google Ngram shows coverage in sources published over 100 years ago. Animal Cruelty and Freedom of Speech: When Worlds Collide: "The Endangered Dog Breeders Association (EBA) and the American Dog Breeders Association (ADBA) were one exception. They combined forces to file a joint amicus brief asking the Court to invalidate Section 48 because it exceeded the ..." -– wbm1058 (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly suggesting 34 words "addresses the topic ... in detail"? Much more than a mere mention is required to meet WP:GNG. When looking for sources to improve the page I certainly expected to find more, but as you have just demonstrated there’s not much out there. Cavalryman (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that there was more discussion of the topic in those sources. I just copied the excerpts included in the Google Search results. wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a Wikipedia editor, your task is much more than to simply assume - do the research and then form your opinion. William Harris (talk) 07:03, 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. — The Earwig talk 06:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptonews[edit]

Cryptonews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an assortment of non-independent social media content and info about the company's editorship. I have not been able to locate any significant coverage, much less in reliable sources. WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY are not met. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding WP:GNG: two or more pieces of coverage in reliable, independent sources are needed. The Yahoo Finance page is a press release, which are classed as non-independent at WP:PRSOURCE. I have also consulted the article you mentioned. (Here's a link if other editors want to view this). The subject is used as a source in footnote 12. I fail to see how this amounts to significant coverage. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I started this page. According to Google Scholar, it is cited in many scholarly publications:

Olivas-Lujan, Miguel R. "Blockchains 2019 in e-HRM: Hit or Hype?." HRM 4.0 For Human-Centered Organizations. Emerald Publishing Limited, 2019.
Calcaterra, Craig, Wulf A. Kaal, and Vadhindran Rao. "Stable Cryptocurrencies: First Order Principles." Stan. J. Blockchain L. & Pol'y 3
- Blake, M. Brian. "Crowdsharing Idle Processor Time." IEEE Computer Architecture Letters 22.04 (2018): 4-5. Calcaterra, Craig, Wulf A. Kaal, and Vadhindran Rao. "Stable Cryptocurrencies: First Order Principles." Stan. J. Blockchain L. & Pol'y 3 (2020): 62.
- Sengupta, Ushnish, and Henry Kim. "Business Process Transformation in Natural Resources Development Using Blockchain: Indigenous Entrepreneurship, Trustless Technology, and Rebuilding Trust." Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology Use Cases. Springer, Cham, 2020. 171-200.
- Raghunath, Nilanjan. "Full Employment and the Cryptocurrency Economy: Lessons Learnt from Michael Polanyi." Tradition and Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical 46.2 (2020): 43-56.
- Ushnish, Sengupta, and Kim Henry. "BUSINESS PROCESS TRANSFORMATION IN NATURAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT USING BLOCKCHAIN: INDIGENOUS ENTREPRENEURSHIP, TRUSTLESS TECHNOLOGY, AND REBUILDING TRUST."
- Blake, M. Brian. "Crowdsharing Idle Processor Time." IEEE Computer Architecture Letters 22.04 (2018): 4-5. Wiśniewska, Anna. "Obszary wykorzystania walut wirtualnych w działalności przedsiębiorstwa." (2018).
- Castillo, Eva M. "Understanding the Use of Malware and Encryption." OUR Journal: ODU Undergraduate Research Journal 7.1 (2020): 2. - Wiśniewska, Anna. "VIRTUAL CURRENCIES IN AN ENTREPRENEURSHIP–AREA OF APPLICATION." Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Nauki Humanistyczno-Spoleczne. Zarzadzanie 45.3 (2018): 7.
- Wiśniewska, Anna. "Waluty wirtualne w kontekście teorematu regresji Ludwiga von Misesa." Catallaxy 2.1 (2017): 37-45. - Teichmann, Fabian Maximilian Johannes, and Marie-Christin Falker. "Cryptocurrencies and financial crime: solutions from Liechtenstein." Journal of Money Laundering Control (2020). Topjur01 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does this address my concern that there is no significant coverage of this subject? Please stop posting walls of text and try to point out one place where this company is discussed by a reliable source at length. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not wish to do a wall of text. I now corrected it by adding breaks. When scholarly publications cite one source a lot, does that not make it significant? Topjur01 (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:SIGCOV states that significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. For example, this article constitutes significant coverage of Mike Pompeo. Also, you have !voted "keep" three times now. Each editor is only allowed one !vote at each AfD. Would you mind erasing two of your three keep !votes? Modussiccandi (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - literally not an RS to be found - David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per above. Article is very poorly sourced with many non-RS items. A search does not find items that would support NCORP. Possibly (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A book and at least ten scholarly articles in influential journals should be enough to pass the notability criterion. This article was co-edited by me, in the early phase it was edited under username "Danielsiter", which I changed into my current username after I realised it isn't a wise idea to use your personal identification in Wikipedia username. This happened due to the fact I'm a beginner and new in creating and editing Wikipedia articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WinSpeChurchill (talk • contribs) 12:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC) — WinSpeChurchill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - None of those who vote "Delete" respond to the fact that many influential academic journals cite the Cryptonews news website. It seems that editors value noteworthy non-academic publications but not noteworthy academic journals. --Topjur01 (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC) (I was mistakenly not logged in and I signed it later) 146.212.27.229 (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC) — 146.212.27.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I have answered this objection in my above comment which I encourage you to read. The issue revolves around significant coverage of which none has been conclusively produced. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "none has been conclusively produced"? Each of these ten highly influential academic publications cited Cryptonews as a source used in scholarly research or publication. If it is enough reliable for scholars - ten of them - it should be enough for Wikipedia. Topjur01 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Self-referential, promotional, lacking reliable WP:SIGCOV, etc, etc. The closest thing to actual RS coverage is the article falsely claiming that "according to Yahoo Finance" the subject is X, Y, and Z, when Yahoo just republished a press release from the parent company... which is laughably un-encyclopedic. HiddenLemon // talk 08:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing to the non-encyclopedic sentence and to the reference to Yahoo Finance. I removed these sentences. There is no more self-referencing apart from one sentence. This self-referencing in one sentence, however, is not a reason to remove the whole article, I hope. Thank you for letting me know. Topjur01 (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG Luciapop (talk) 17:41, 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. Tone 16:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Przasnyski[edit]

Marcin Przasnyski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional , with no detailed coverage about him besides press releases and PR-style interviews. No reason to suspect anything else- DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He was involved with some notable businesses and such but the coverage is about them and not about him. Not seeing anything in-depth that goes beyond a press-release or low-key interview. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Logsdail[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Leonard Logsdail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article. –Cupper52Discuss! 16:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - yes, it's poorly written, bordering on spam, but he has dressed a lot of famous people and for major films. Willing to be persuaded to keep, if you want to save this. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from the references in the article, I have found this, this - which is fully dedicated to the subject, this and this. French Vogue calls him legendary (as well as several other sources mentioned above). There are also mentions in German Zeit and Wall Street Journal. I believe this is enough to pass WP:GNG. @Bearian: please take a look. Less Unless (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:42, 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiza Khatun[edit]

Hafiza Khatun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Member of lots of insignificant professional organizations. Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Most of the sources cited are either unreliable or primary. Worse, many cited sources say nothing about the subject. On the other hand, secondary sources are scarce and I couldn't find anything substantial. Mosesheron (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mosesheron (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mosesheron (talk) 07:39, 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 Speedy keep per WP:SK point 3. There is clear consensus that the nomination bears no resemblance to the content of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers[edit]

Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a hoax. Craig Jones wears women's underwear. Etc... (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 03:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is there something I'm missing here? The vast majority of the article is taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannia, which generally does not deal in hoaxes. While the article's notability could perhaps be disputed, a hoax it is not. I would ordinarily just vote (possibly speedy) keep, but the rationale is so irreconcilable with the article (and just bizarre) that I fear I've made a mistake. Clarification would be greatly appreciated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. No coherent argument for deletion has been offered. However, it is a major black eye to have an article that is copied word-for-word from our competitor, with only the last (oddly placed) sentence being "original" content. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless the nominator can clearly explain why this is a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep As per Extraordinary Writ, the majority of the content here exactly reflects what is in the original 1911 Britannica source. I don't see any reason to believe that the subject is not as this article (or the 1911 Britannica article) states. The subject otherwise clearly meets WP:NPOL and WP:NBIO. (While I do not see any such content, if there was content about the subject "wearing women's underwear", then it could easily be removed. We don't fix vandalism or content problems by deleting titles.) If there is any confusion or error here, then it seem to be the nominator's.... Guliolopez (talk) 12:40, 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twice: Seize the Light[edit]

Twice: Seize the Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary does not meet WP:GNG- references consists of WP:ROUTINE announcements. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has reviews in reliable sources such as Korea Herald and Cosmopolitan with other coverage such as Billboard which have all been added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources indicated above are considered reliable except maybe the Korea Herald. Doing a WP:BEFORE reveals little to nothing else and certainly nothing that rises to the level that comes close to passing the notability guideline. Must receive sigcov in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Fails this according to WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, Billboard is a very reliable source and the Cosmopolitan is a reliable source for uncontroversial topics like film reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 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) 03:03, 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 redirect to Gore Vidal#Fiction. Consensus to not keep. Information about his relationship with Vidal can be merged from the history if deemed relevant. Sandstein 22:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Trimble III[edit]

AfDs for this article:
James Trimble III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Not a notable soldier or person, he's only really known for his association with Gore Vidal, which could easily be a merge or redirect target. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails the notability for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for baseball and being killed in WWII in addition to relationship with Gore Vidal and thus has the attendant coverage from all these angles, enough to pass WP:GNG. In addition to the ESPN feature story and Daily Beast article already cited, he is covered in numerous baseball publications such as [29]. Kges1901 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kges1901 (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Kges1901 (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettlerhello • contribs 02:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettlerhello • contribs 19:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gore Vidal, where he is discussed. Rlendog (talk) 16:19, 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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José António Falcão[edit]

José António Falcão (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promotion, without encyclopedic relevance.--Rtws123 (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:José António Falcão--Rtws123 (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The subject certainly meets WP:GNG as Falcão received a lot of coverage as one can see on the portuguese article. Nonetheless the current article on english wikipedia lacks sources. Lechatjaune (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:53, 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 merge to Draft:Seneca mission. Consensus arrived at. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seneca Mission Indian Church Grounds Desecration[edit]

Seneca Mission Indian Church Grounds Desecration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay on local history, based on original research, with a strong point of view. I can find no reliable sources describing the alleged desecration as such. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I think this should undergo a shift in topic and content, and be moved to Seneca Indian Mission. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Not opposed to that in principle, but the only in-depth sources I could find on the mission are ProQuest 125930616 and [30], both of which are (1) primary and (2) written by missionary organizations. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is primary too, but it's the kind of sourcing that we just sometimes have to live with. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is not enough reliable sourcing to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the main mission article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose as Seneca Indian Mission, so that the article focuses on the church, rather than what happened to its land after it became defunct. I see no reason why the sources identified should not be reliable. I could not get to see the Proquest article, but it appears to be in a reputable publication. Equally a Presbyterian church publication is likely to be at least a reputable a source as a local newspaper that reprints press releases. However ultimately this is about a local church (though an atypical one). I am not qualified to judge notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. hdl:2027/coo.31924067076905 (in the public domain) looks like it could be turned into an article on the mission, assuming "Buffalo Creek" refers to Buffalo River (New York)/Buffalo Creek Reservation. Peterkingiron, Drmies, sound OK? I don't see much in Seneca Mission Indian Church Grounds Desecration worth salvaging, and a redirect from that article would be a WP:NPOV problem. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and [31], [32], and JSTOR 3143790 also look promising. Turns out searching for "Seneca mission church" was the problem; "Seneca mission" is much more fruitful. I would suggest the new article be called Seneca mission, since it seems to have been known by that name and "Indian" is obviously problematic. See Draft:Seneca mission. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • AleatoryPonderings, thank you. I'm fine with that. But what shall I do here--close it as merge and merge the content, which we might end up editing out of the article anyway? Drmies (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Drmies, A (very!) selective merge and redirect would be OK, except for the possible NPOV problem I mentioned above (calling anything a desecration without good sources is not my cup of tea). I'd be more inclined to TNT the original article because I honestly can't see anything but the images to merge. But as I doubt anyone would be searching for "Seneca Mission Indian Church Grounds Desecration" anyway, it probably does little harm to save the history. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:57, 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 speedy keep. Closing per WP:SNOW and WP:EARLY. Nominating rationale is not based on any recognizable standard under the deletion process guidelines and there are no supporting !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brantham TMD[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brantham TMD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a proposed depot, that was cancelled before construction commenced. The rolling stock it was intended to be the home depot for is being maintained an existing depot that have been expanded to accommodate.[33][34] Yumosumo (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [36] was an attempt to fix after I actioned stage 3 of the AfD process, but it came up with the 2019 debate. Anyway has now been resolved. Despite accusations from one editor that I am seeking to be disruptive, have a conflict of interest and a fixation with the article. None of this is true. I set the article up in 2017, made a further 6 edits in 2019 and then nominated it for AfD in 2021, so 3 sessions in over 3 years, hardly a fixation. I took no part in the 2019 AfD. Appears that said editor is a bit worried that maybe there is a vaild case for deletion, hence their wish to shut the debate down. Yumosumo (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notabillity is not temporary. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, but later Merge into the article on the new depot. The article is obviously has WP:CRYSTAL issues, as proved by the fact that it was never built. Black Kite (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:NTEMP --Kemalcan (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bushranger and Kemalcan. casualdejekyll (talk) 16:25, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ChipotleHater (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Goodman (police officer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eugene Goodman (police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:1E and WP:BLP1E, he is only notable for one event. I would also consider merging with 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Most of the national/international attention he has gotten has gone away, further proving the point that he is only notable for one event. I really think this article would be much more appropriate on the main article. ChipotleHater (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ChipotleHater (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ChipotleHater (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Close Early. The prior AfD closed just a day ago. It received substantial participation and was closed with a consensus to "Keep". There is no valid reason to revisit this again, and certainly not so quickly after the prior "Keep" consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman: This new AfD was opened 32 hours after you closed the prior AfD as a consensus to "Keep". Is this new AfD even procedurally valid? Cbl62 (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ a b "Japan Patent Office - Patent JP,2017-515252,A".
  2. ^ "HuffPost Reggie Middleton Contributions".
  3. ^ "Going Short by Daniel Fisher, Forbes".
  4. ^ "Middleton Says U.S. Housing Market `Still in Downfall'".
  5. ^ "VPRO Documentary - The Power of Credit Rating Agencies".
  6. ^ "VPRO Documentary - Debt and Redemption".
  7. ^ "CNBC".
  8. ^ "CNBC".
  9. ^ "CNBC".
  10. ^ "RT Keiser Report".
  11. ^ "RT Keiser Report".
  12. ^ "RT Keiser Report".
  13. ^ "RT Keiser Report".
  14. ^ "RT Keiser Report".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_January_22&oldid=1004353928"