< December 20 December 22 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Head Hunter (2016 film)[edit]

The Head Hunter (2016 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 film, does not have significant coverage from independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlena Beard[edit]

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

Obscure Non-notable actress that fails WP:NACTOR with only 6 credits in filmography all being minor roles in Our Gang productions. Fails WP:GNG also as I attempted to do research to find sources on the stub and could not find any reliable or significant sources per WP:Before ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) GRINCHIDICAE🎄 23:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Gawne[edit]

Ellen Gawne (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 given a PROD on the basis that she does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:NPOL; contested with This figure has been featured in several, independent news sources. Deleting it is homophobic. And I am happy to report its deletion to the relevant authorities

I have done a WP:BEFORE search and found no evidence of this alleged significant coverage in independent news sources. Spiderone 22:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Till Kraemer[edit]

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

Editor created a page for himself. No evidence of notability. Porn awards do not count towards notability anymore. Dream Focus 21:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, porn awards do not count, but continuous press coverage in mainstream media since 2001 and major acting parts in television shows do. Dream Focus is already engaged here and there where he already tried to discredit my contributions and my notability. --Till Kraemer (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get any coverage other than someone online or a porn channel talking you to about porn? Which notable shows did you have a significant role in? Something not porn related. Dream Focus 21:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't talk to you anymore. You are clearly not listening. I won't repeat myself over and over again just for you. Pretty much everything is listed in the press coverage link I already posted. And yes, mainstream media like Klub Konkret, Hamburger Morgenpost and Hamburger Abendblatt talk with me about porn, no shit, who would have thought? I'm a porn star. Your "argument" is like saying: "But Jeff Bezos only talks about Amazon, that doesn't count". And regarding the shows I already posted the IMDb link but apparently you are not willing to click it. I'm out of here. I'm done wasting my time with you. Enjoy the rest of the discussion. --Till Kraemer (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taboo fields of work are often shunned from mainstream outlets, yes, but those facing such adverse conditions should still be treated with respect as opposed to potentially being chastised. But that's just my two cents and perhaps I misinterpreted the tone. sex work is work! — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally no press releases and yea, no shit, these are mostly interviews, what's the problem? Also, since nobody clicks my links apparently, I'm gonna list some examples of coverage here:

I also have a leading part in four seasons of the TV show Sexy Alm (Sport1, also released on DVD). --Till Kraemer (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop bluedgeoning these AFDs and badgering every voter? You have failed to read WP:RS and specifically Wikipedia:Independent sources. Interviews aren't independent, they aren't coverage of you because it's you talking about yourself and your interests. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 23:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"That give no depth of coverage"? Did you even click one of those links? Use Google Translate if needed. --Till Kraemer (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Till Kraemer, WP:INTERVIEWs are usually considered as primary sources for the purposes of establishing notability. What GNG calls for is multiple sources which tick all of the necessary boxes: reliable, independent, secondary, and depth of coverage. Sources which tick some, but not all, don't cut it. Best GirthSummit (blether) 23:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Geovane[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any evidence of notability. Unless I'm missing something, this does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. For NFOOTBALL, I have checked World Football, kooora, Soccerway, Football Critic, Playmaker Stats and Football Database. Spiderone 21:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harris, Arizona[edit]

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

User continues to put lies Wikipedia. A simple look at the map indicates that "Harris is a populated place" is false. It first appeared on the 1948 topo as a siding of a railroad spur, just as it appears as "Harris Siding" on the 1969 topo and [1] calls it a siding. I got zero results on newspapers.com. Reywas92Talk 20:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 20:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 20:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Anawalt[edit]

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

As mentioned previously, article was created by WANAWALT. This may be William Anawalt, Ms. Anawalt's husband, and also the creator of the page for Francis Cunningham, Ms. Anawalt's father. This may be an attempt to artificially raise Ms. Anawalt's profile and internet presence and is likely in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines.

Beyond the article's questionable creation, Ms. Anawalt does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article is basically describing how she is a professor who created many programs at USC, but there is no additional information that supports how those programs or her teachings were notable, distinguished, uniquely successful, or accomplished in any way. It does not appear Ms. Anawalt pioneered a unique method that broke ground in her field, was praised by fellow academics or journalists for her work, or that there is a stable of notable alumni who praise her or attribute their success to her teachings. It appears that Ms. Anawalt is a college professor and that alone does not merit its own page.

The article also lacks citation with multiple paragraphs not being attributed to any sources. There is nothing to verify sentences like "For the next four years, Anawalt reviewed dance in mini-malls, church basements, gymnasiums and on the Los Angeles streets, giving dancers and performances in these unconventional venues as much attention as those in the city's established concert halls and bastions of official culture." Beyond the lack of citation, the sentence is basically saying that Ms. Anawalt wrote about dance for a newspaper (it is unclear if she was on the paper's staff), which alone does not merit its own Wikipedia page. Plenty of arts and dance journalists do not have their own Wikipedia pages, how is Ms. Anawalt any different?

For this sentence, "In 2009, Anawalt resigned from the Pasadena, Calif. Arts and Culture Commission after the commission refused to display two pieces of public art," this is just the NYT describing how she quit a job. There is also no citation for this sentence, "She is the recipient of a Citizen Ambassador award from the City of Los Angeles and a Literary Arts Award from the Pasadena Arts Council." There has to be something about her own journalistic career that is uniquely accomplished or notable that can be verified from additional sources to merit page creation.

The only item included on Ms. Anawalt's page that may appear to merit page creation is her writing of the Joffrey book which was adapted into a PBS documentary. However, writing a book alone does not serve as merit for its own page, the book itself needs to have met the notability requirement, which the Joffrey book does not appear to beyond initial reviews published several decades ago. Deeper examination of the article shows that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability factors. Another way of saying this is that if this page never existed for Ms. Anawalt, would anyone have noticed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by O811RT1 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Authors who publish new books will receive reviews, but the authors and the books themselves often fade into obscurity, often due to lack of notability. Has there been substantial discussion about the Joffrey film or book since their initial release? Has the book been cited by other dance authors, writers, and arts professionals in their own books and films? The Joffrey Ballet would be notable to have its own Wikipedia page as being the subject of the film, but not necessarily the author. Also, more clarification and citations are needed if the book was "adapted" into a film, or if the book was more background research into creating the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:bee1:45b0:dd68:c2b6:a059:c60b (talk • contribs)
It doesn't matter how old the reviews are. It matters that she received significant coverage for it. That is the standard on Wikipedia. Please read WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Read the sources linked in the article if you need clarification on the book to film; I and at least some of the others here do not. Last thing: If you are the nominator, please sign in. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the way it should work, but it does not work that way with current policy. The COI is not really relevant to determining notability. Possibly (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is if it the creation of said page is to intentionally pay homage or raise the profile of Ms. Anawalt. People who Google her now will come across this page and believe Ms. Anawalt to be a notable figure simply because the page exists. And the existence of said page can help Ms. Anawalt or her relatives in their own personal endeavors, such as a way of encouraging prospective students to enroll in her academic program, or raising Ms. Anawalt's profile for any other professional or personal aim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:bee1:45b0:dd68:c2b6:a059:c60b (talk • contribs)
I think this comment is by the nominator, who was not logged in. Similarities include: “Ms. Anawalt,” “page” (rather than “article”), “raising the profile”/”raise the profile.” As there was no vote, I am not accusing of malice/sockpuppetry per se—just pointing out that the person is very green. If this is you, O811RT1, There is nothing inherently wrong with writing an article to pay homage. A good number of articles I began were to pay homage, in a way, to notable people. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, also they do not sign their posts like the nominator. If not, User:2600:1700:bee1:45b0:dd68:c2b6:a059:c60b, would you mind please sharing how on Earth you found this AfD to make your very first post/edit to Wikipedia? Do you have a connection to Sasha Anawalt or to her father Francis Cunningham? Netherzone (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easy enough to remove anything promotional/resumelike so that the COI would not be an ongoing problem. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 15:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC) DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 06:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pornopedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pornopedia (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 fail to see how this is notable, it's never received any significant coverage, just a few passing mentions like "omg did you know only 5% of people watch porn with the sound off?!?!", fails WP:NWEB GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you fail to see how Pornopedia is notable, you might want to check out the "secret" In the media section of the article. Having a column in the notable German men's magazine Coupé for years is not "just a few passing mentions". Pornopedia is also used as source in online articles of big newspapers and Pornopedia is mentioned in pop culture, like this book for example. --Till Kraemer (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read about what significant, independent coverage actually is. Because stuff "they" (being the subject) authored and a 3 sentence blurb isn't it and a work of fiction mentioning it once in passing isn't either. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to count the sentences of Bild's article about Pornopedia again. Spoiler alert: there are more than 3. --Till Kraemer (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSP ctrl f bild. It's not a valid source. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read the part "editors consider the source usable in some cases" again but apparently, you are not one of those editors. I made all my points. If the article is not notable even though you're the first admin since 2011‎ who is bothered by it, fine. I'm out of here. Surprisingly, arguing on Wikipedia talk pages is not my day-to-day business ;) Cheers and all the best, --Till Kraemer (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Sources that publish garbage like this are not reliable for anything, including demonstrating notability. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(inserted) ADD without specific comment: the deletion discussion about the equivalent article on deWP, from back in 2012 (resulted in deletion) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually more Bild articles about Pornopedia, for example this one. They don't show up in Google News but you can find them if you search on Bild.de directly. --Till Kraemer (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources written by the subject are not independent and cannot generally establish notability as it's not coverage. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write a single Bild article, so those sources actually are independent. You can find more press coverage here, mostly from industry magazines like Adult Webmaster Business though. German men's magazines like the print versions of Coupé and Praline covered Pornopedia outside of the column too, so it is independent too since I didn't write those articles. --Till Kraemer (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus is checking in from this discussion where he already tried to discredit my contributions and nobody was talking about porn awards here. --Till Kraemer (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have also nominated your article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Till Kraemer. Since these two things are related, it should be mentioned here. And all you have done on commons is upload pictures of female porn stars it seems, and all your edits fit on one page despite it being done for years. You aren't very active editing anywhere, and most of your edits are related to you. Dream Focus 21:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW keep. Participation in the discussion following improvements to the article leaves no reasonable possibility that this will be deleted. BD2412 T 01:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slipstream (2005 film)[edit]

Slipstream (2005 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)

Yet another TV film with no evidence of notability in site. There are no references in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100 Million BC[edit]

100 Million BC (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 see blog-like reviews, a board game titled Escape from 100 Million BC, and streaming and retail sites, but no evidence of notability. Not to be confused with One Million B.C., of course. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Dread Central a RS? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moby Dick (2010 film)[edit]

Moby Dick (2010 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)

I see blog-like reviews and streaming sites in WP:BEFORE, but no evidence of notability. Only source is primary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I was a bit surprised at the amount of sourcing I found. Asylum films typically don't get this level of coverage unless they're of Sharknado proportions. There aren't many that reach this middle ground. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiifi Coleman[edit]

Fiifi Coleman (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 NACTOR, references 1 and 3 don't point to anything about him they bring you to the main page of a website. The other 4 references are all IMDb showing minor roles. JW 1961 Talk 19:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 19:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Paras[edit]

Dr. Paras (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 doctor, sourced to the usual vanity spam sites, no independent coverage (at least no meaningful independent coverage), just paid for PR and self published puffery. The Business Standard piece almost had me fooled until I realized it's sponsored partner content. This should also be salted, see: Draft:Paras (life coach), Dr. Paras Daithankar, Paras Daithankar, Paras (Life Coach), Dr Paras GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on which sources? Every single source is a paid for black hat SEO site or PR. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Quintão[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this footballer passes WP:NFOOTBALL at the moment. See this discussion. The dubious caps have now been removed from the profile as there is no source, other than Transfermarkt, that supports this.

I can find nothing to suggest that he has ever made an appearance for Geylang, Shanghai or HNK Trogir either. Searches under his full name and his nickname 'Asoko' are all drawing blanks. As mentioned in the discussion, he was recently deleted from Italian Wiki for verifiability issues much like the ones I'm raising now.

He also fails WP:GNG. If anyone finds any sources that shows that he passes NFOOTBALL then please let me know and I will withdraw this. Spiderone 18:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ardwood, Virginia[edit]

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

Looks to be a neighborhood on the edge of Earlysville. GNIS entry is sourced to an ADC map, which often doesn't bode well. Coverage I can find is passing mentions suggesting or calling it a neighborhood - [6], [7], [8], etc. Advertisement for the neighborhood here, which makes it fairly clear that this is just an outlying neighborhood and WP:GEOLAND isn't met. WP:GNG doesn't seem to be either, as the coverage is either non-independent or passing mentions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Grabish (reporter)[edit]

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Being a reporter in and of itself does not provide notability. I cannot find significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 18:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indrek Käo[edit]

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

Moved to draft once. Known mostly for management of Põlva FC Lootos, a IV liiga Estonian team. Does not meet NFOOTY or GNG, coverage in news is of local matches and photo credits to him. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 17:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muqarrab[edit]

Muqarrab (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:NOTESSAY. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 01:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Builder[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bridge Builder (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 series in which no game is notable. It is thus doubtful that the series could be notable on its own; it most likely fails WP:GNG/WP:NVG. Our WP:VG/SE search engine has zero hits for the series and most of the games, only a few hits for Pontifex and Bridge Project. Whether these games are notable on their own might be assessed independently. IceWelder [✉] 09:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakshi Talwar[edit]

Sakshi Talwar (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 maker, actor, entrepreneur and whatever else is claimed! Fails WP:GNG Palmsandbeaches (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 07:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 07:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 07:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Eyes Sunglasses[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bright Eyes Sunglasses (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 survived an AfD in 2012, but our notability standards are higher now. The "articles" referenced in that AfD are still present in archive form in the article and they're not of the standard that provide significant coverage. Other GHits are limited to retail directory listings. StarM 02:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doctors for America[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG due to a lack of in-depth coverage in secondary sources. I considered a redirect to Vivek Murthy, but as he's a co-founder we'd have a WP:XY problem. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AleatoryPonderings: - I do take your point, and partially agree that by a strict interpretation, this probably shouldn't fly. That said, I feel like some number of passing mentions can be summed to equate to a significant coverage, and this group seems to hit that bar. NickCT (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Bool[edit]

Joanna Bool (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 actress, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, I did find this however that alone isn't enough, All of her roles thus far all seem to be one-bit roles, Fails NACTOR and GNG, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 15:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tobe Nwigwe[edit]

Tobe Nwigwe (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 rapper who satisfies no criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. A before search shows he lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG also. Celestina007 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How did you make this determination? gidonb (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Sexy J[edit]

DJ Sexy J (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 DJ who satisfies no criterion from WP:MUSICBIO neither does she possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her hence falls to satisfy GNG either. All sources used in the article are extended long announcements and interviews which counts for nothing. I should also add that a few reliable sources do discuss her but this RS are announcements hence are of no value to GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GhostDestroyer100, ummm what I think you mean to say is they aren’t to be considered RS in this very context. Reliable sources every now & again publishes what can be referred to as a mere announcement but it doesn’t invalidate the fact that they are a reliable press. The problem is with the piece and not the source per se. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:G3 by ST47. Chompy Ace 23:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Ardneil (Ardnell) Hunter[edit]

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

unverifiable. I have some concerns about the edits by the article creator, User:DingoFilter, in general, but this one especially caught my eye.

In the sources given which I could verify, and elsewhere, I can find no trace of Ardnell or Ardneil Hunter.

Simply misreading the source and interpreting the name of the lands as the name of a person could perhaps be understood; inventing all kinds of fanciful extras, like a year of birth and death, a battle they fought in, the variation "Ardnell de Huntar", ...

Can some people check whether this is a hoax, or something found in some sources but just not the ones accessible online (both those mentioned in the article, and others)? Fram (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


FamilySearch is an official respected LDS website and it clearly shows the family linage and his name is Ardneil Hunter https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/L6QR-77P https://ibb.co/DKZGLDg https://ibb.co/ZMc44CP https://ibb.co/vmNcKxd — Preceding unsigned comment added by DingoFilter (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, FamilySearch is a large website that includes a range of information and cannot be dismissed with a broad brush (e.g. it includes primary records, which theoretically could be cited as WP:RS, but only as consistent with WP"PRIMARY, and also published books but as with Google Books, we cite the actual books). However, what is being cited here is FamilySearch Tree, a crowdsource, uncurrated genealogy database. As Fram says, anyone can add anything to this, and the same genealogical nonsense gets added back almost as quickly as it can be corrected. The only sources given for this entry are 1) a personal family tree posted on Ancestry, which is worthless, and 2) a personal submission to the precursor of FamilySearch Tree, which is worthless. This is of absolutely zero value to Wikipedia and should be immediately removed anywhere on Wikipedia it is cited. Agricolae (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agricolae, I'll have the Collins source in about an hour--will scan at least some pages relevant to this clan so we can answer the question for the other articles created by DingoFilter. It looks like a great many of them have notability concerns. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Collins seems to be taking this Aylmer claim from Burke, who says something similar, and Burke is of highly dubious reliability when discussing the 13th century (and before). Setting aside all of the other issues, such a passing mention doesn't make someone notable. Oddly, DingoFilter placed a banner on the Talk page saying: "Out of Copyright Content - All content dates from the 13th to 19th century so well out of copyright and now public domain." This would be bad practice even were it true, but given the cites to Collins and FamilySearch, it is patently false. Clearly this material on this page and much on earlier generations primarily derives from FamilySearch Tree - in other words, is entirely worthless in establishing notability. Agricolae (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Word. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, I think we're more concerned that he isn't real--that someone misread the name of a place as the name of a person in an old book and uploaded it to a social family tree, and that person or possibly someone else is trying to fabricate a biography of someone for whom there is no record. Should we merge something that in the verification process is revealed to be an out and out lie? That is what the Collier reference is. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olena Uutai[edit]

Olena Uutai (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 musician is only notable for one event (Britain's Got Talent participation). Additionally, coverage in sources seems trivial and is mostly covered by tabloids such as The Sun. Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 13:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 13:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 13:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Some opinion to keep, but neither of these provide any sources which would suggest this season article passes any guideline. Fenix down (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 CA Oradea season[edit]

2018–19 CA Oradea season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Playing three levels below the fully professional level so not within the scope of WP:NSEASONS. Fails WP:GNG more importantly (not surprising considering their average attendance is 150 people). Spiderone 13:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please show sources that provide significant coverage of this season to justify a separate article for it Spiderone 09:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should try to document as much notable stuff as possible. We don't usually document amateur football in this level of detail because the coverage is trivial. Have you got at least three reliable sources covering the 2018–19 season in detail? At the moment, this is a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK and should either be deleted or redirected to CA Oradea as per what it clearly states at WP:NSEASONS. Spiderone 21:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Please be more informed when making deletion requests. While the reference is indeed from 2013, the club wasn't in top flight back then. Actually, it was in "no-flight". The club was dissolved in the '60s. However, they were still considered a "legendary" club, even 60 years later. So how can a club be less notable when it's actually active? It makes no sense. Dante4786 (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It still stands that fails both GNG and SEASONS. HawkAussie (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying that the club itself isn't notable. We are simply stating that the 2018-19 season is not notable enough for a stand-alone article as it contains nothing that couldn't be summarised in a sentence in the main article, to be honest. Spiderone 21:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PrintReleaf[edit]

PrintReleaf (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:NORG - all coverage is promotional content, either rehashed press releases or explicitly promotional content (one of the five apparently independent sources begins "Press Release"). No significant coverage, no reliable, independent secondary sources. PROD removed. ninety:one 12:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ninety:one 12:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for taking time to look this over and consider this article. I'll defer to you guys as I'm really a newbie here and learning the ropes. I've searched high and low for references beyond those cited and coming up short. An interesting situation is that the mainstream media under covers climate change (at heart what PrintReleaf is addressing) - (see “Why are the US new media so bad at covering climate change?” The Guardian, March 22, 2019; subtitle is: “The US news media devote startlingly little time to climate change - how can newsrooms cover it in ways that will finally resonate with their audiences?”) Link to article: www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/22/why-is-the-us-news-media-so-bad-at-covering-climate-change.
I launched into this article thinking, and still thinking this is notable company by the sheer impact of their work. But from what I read this alone doesn't meet the criteria. Just to note... PrintReleaf addresses a massive scale of office paper use, which is on average 10,000 sheets per year per worker - over 2.2 trillion pages a year. The growth in paper use is some 22% a year now. The U.S. uses about 68 million trees a year to generate paper and paper products (Record Nations - "How Much Paper is Used in One Day?” Morgan O’Mara, November 12, 2020).
On the PrintReleaf side at their eight reforestation projects in priority areas (particularly Brazil and Madagascar) to date 2 million plus trees have been planted offsetting 17,138,820,402 letter pages / 85,473 tons of paper. And are doing this in a verifiable, scientific, careful way.
Anyway, thanks for reading through this and again thanks for your good work. At the end of the day, if you see anyway to publish this, that'd be great, but I think I really understand the rationale.
Have a great Holiday! And a fantastic 2021. Cheers! Kansas19 (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tushar Pillay[edit]

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

There are several issues with this article.

Also to note, creator of the page been removing deletion and other tags from the page without any discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He maintains that "World Record University" mentioned in the page is not existing. But that's not true. Here's the website https://worldrecordsuniversity.co.uk/

Besides, User:RationalPuff had continued to make disruptive edits on this page including adding speedy deletion tags when admins like User:Espresso Addict and User:Liz had declined the speedy. This is quite disheartening.

There are clear evidence that the content of this page is factual and supported with sources. WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are met here. That has been the reason the two admins declined the Speedy deletion for a record of two times.Papani i t.d. (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 FCSB II season[edit]

2017–18 FCSB II season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Playing two levels below a level that would be covered by WP:NSEASONS and fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 10:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Internationale Junge Orchesterakademie. Please do not nominate articles for WP:MERGE or WP:REDIRECT for deletion. AfD is only to discuss deletion. Missvain (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kultur- und Sozialstiftung Internationale Junge Orchesterakademie[edit]

Kultur- und Sozialstiftung Internationale Junge Orchesterakademie (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 warrant its own article. No secondary sources. Summarize and move to a section in Internationale Junge Orchesterakademie. intforce (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Houssem Mekhinini[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NFOOTBALL; in Tunisia, he has played for a club that has only played in the second and third tiers, neither of which are fully pro. Also the Saudi Second Division is not listed at WP:FPL. Also fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 09:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Mounal[edit]

Pierre Mounal (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:BLPREQUESTDELETE, (from Ticket:2020122110002764). Also he doesn't seem to be notable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible Story[edit]

The Bible Story (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 was unable to find any reliable independent sources for “‘The Bible Story’ Arthur S. Maxwell” on Google or DuckDuckGo. Admittedly it’s hard to filter out hits for the books themselves but I doubt this work is notable enough to warrant an independent article. Dronebogus (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cupper52, you didn’t really provide a substantial basis to keep this article. Did you actually find any potential sources? Peterkington, the age, availability, and publisher background have little relevance to notability. Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birnam Wood, Pittsylvania County, Virginia[edit]

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

Can only really find passing mentions of this one. It appears to be some sort of subdivision or neighborhood. I see no evidence that WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG is met. Hog Farm Bacon 05:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berry Store, Kentucky[edit]

Berry Store, 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)

Appears to have been a singular store. Rennick's index calls it a locale but his Barren County directory doesn't describe it. Topos seem to show a single building at the site. No results for the string Berry Store in Barren County, KY newspapers.com hits. The various mentions I can find fit a store better than a community - [14]. Other hits seem to be for stores in other counties. Not seeing any way WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG is met. Hog Farm Bacon 05:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iran–Turkey proxy conflict[edit]

Iran–Turkey proxy conflict (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:OR Shawarsh (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawarsh (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 07:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 07:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If not deleted, I support adding a section for recent developments wherein the Astana peace process, the proposal of the Iranian-Turkish-Pakistani alliance, the non-involvement of Iran in the 2020 NK war, Iranian support for the GNA, deterioration of Turkish relations with Israel and of Iran with India (Khamenei released a statement supporting the Kashmiri people) improvement of Iranian relations with Pakistan are mentioned Angele201002 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On friendly terms? Turkey just claimed Iran's northern lands as its own. Iran supposedly wasn't involved in Karabakh so it could keep its very nationalistic Azeri minority happy. Israeli support for Azerbaijan shows how much Armenia relies on Iran. Iran publicly expressed support for GNA, but just recently the UN criticized Iran for heavy arms supply to Haftar's rebels[1]. Israel also accused Iran of funding Haftar. Also the recent appointments of new ambassadors to Israel and Saudi Arabia by Turkey show a turning point, especially given the recent tensions between iran and Turkey.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.119.215 (talk) 21:22, December 16, 2020 (UTC)
Added this statement from talk page, I have no opinion on this AfD. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Luck Jane[edit]

Good Luck Jane (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 band and tagged as such for 10 years, fails WP:NBAND. All I can find is a few sources with passing mention, nothing to suggest notability. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Desert[edit]

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

Uncited for over a 11 years. I can't find any sources which discuss this. Currently the article describes this as both an area in the Sinai Desert, and a piece of art, but I can find zero in-depth sourcing about it. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Seems to me like there is a degree of significant coverage that mey well satisfy gng. However, no real discussion followed and there hasn't been any further contribution since the relist so seems unlikely we will get consensus one way or the other this time. This closure doesn't preclude renomination at a later date. Fenix down (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katia Coppola[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Coppola has never played in a match between two teams playing in a league listed at WP:FPL nor has she ever had a senior international cap, failing WP:NFOOTBALL on that basis. See Soccerway. Coppola has not received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG as the only sources providing more than just a passing mention are this and this, both from the same website and insufficient in terms of coverage for GNG. I have checked the article on Italian Wikipedia and none of the references used show significant coverage either. Spiderone 21:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a look there and, unfortunately, most of the sources weren't sufficient for notability purposes. Four of them were just transfer announcements. One was a profile page on football.it. One seems to be a furniture website. Three are notes rather than references and the other two only seem to mention her once. This isn't to say that good references don't exist but I've done a Google search and ProQuest search and not picked up anything other than what's stated in my nom. Spiderone 23:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that search of yours, I ran an Italy-specific search on DuckDuckGo (Google has gotten worse over the years I've found) and came up with [21] [22] [23] [24] and a few match reports. There may be more out there as well - DDG isn't amazing, but it's a good tool. SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bookmark that website for sure. Very useful for finding sources on footballers from non-Anglophone countries. Coppola, in my view, is probably one good source away from GNG. This one from your selection is quite detailed and this one is okay. Definitely looks to be borderline. Spiderone 00:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Harvey[edit]

Arthur Harvey (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 indications of notability, no in-line references. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 23:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 23:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Keep Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Zubavlenko[edit]

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

Quite frankly, the article fails the WP:GNG test despite passing WP:NFOOTY as I got no results for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Safi Al-Zaqrati[edit]

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

Despite passing WP:NFOOTY, the player fails WP:GNG with only brief mentions about him. HawkAussie (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Waziri[edit]

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

Despite passing WP:NFOOTY, the lack of resources for this player (most being brief) means this player fail WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Al-Zayni[edit]

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

Looking through these articles I suspect that the article might fail WP:GNG despite passing WP:NFOOTY. HawkAussie (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 13:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Cipriano[edit]

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

Individual does not meet notability criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster talk 01:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 01:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 01:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Going with deletes here. I'm happy to draftify if someone wants to merge anything from the article. However, none of the keeps really presented rationale behind sourcing aside from one user stating that it's been mentioned in regional publications. Thanks for keeping things civil and respecting this decision. Missvain (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Independence Party[edit]

Northern Independence Party (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. This group are not-notable, is one of those parties which breaks GNG and ORG and similar policies. Notable coverage is minimal and editors appear to be broadly linked to the Party with little to no independent coverage. An article which is mostly promotion, and not achievement, is not an article to keep. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— Vasey2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Reply: I did not "cite registration as a requirement for a political party in the United Kingdom" - it isn't. The point I made is antirely valid. Please do not misrepresent. Emeraude (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— 82.46.202.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Seagull123
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Sunderland Echo Yes Yes Same article as source #8 from the Blackpool Gazette Yes ✔ Yes
The Independent Yes Yes ~ Article's main focus is on the concept of "Northern Independence", but uses the party('s leader) as a way of discussing this concept ~ Partial
Vice Yes ? No consensus on reliability per WP:RSP No Article about possible northern independence; very brief mention of the party ✘ No
Yorkshire Bylines Yes ? I've never heard of this website before, their Twitter account calls them "Independent citizen journalism" - so possibly unreliable Yes Article discusses the party, but devotes at least half to previous proposals for regional devolution ? Unknown
Red Pepper No Appears to be written by the party - a lot of use of "we believe..." etc ? Written by the party on this website. Yes ✘ No
Redaction Politics Yes ? Never heard of the website before; their Twitter account has about 400 followers, so it's unlikely to be a really reliable source Yes ? Unknown
Northern Echo Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Blackpool Gazette Yes Yes Same article as source #1 from the Sunderland Echo Yes ✔ Yes
The Alternative UK ? It appears to be about the Red Pepper article (source #5) which is by the party ? Again, never heard of this website before - their Twitter has ~2.7k followers Yes ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
@ItsKesha: the reason I mentioned the number of Twitter followers - which I admit I didn't explain before - is due to the reason that I had never heard of the websites before, and I couldn't find anything about those websites elsewhere. Therefore, I looked at their social media accounts to see what they were saying/what was being said about them. For example, the "Redaction News" one, as it has only around 400 followers, this suggests that it isn't a reliable source, as if it was, it would likely have more. I know this isn't an 'official' way of measuring reliability; but in the absence of anything else I could find about these sources outside of their own websites/social media accounts, it is useful in demonstrating that these are likely just low-traffic blog-style 'news' sources. Seagull123 Φ 17:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to add to what I just said, there's nothing (that I could find) which suggests that Yorkshire Bylines, Red Pepper, Redaction Politics, or The Alternative UK are reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes - that's why I marked them as of questionable reliability, as there was also nothing I could find which suggested they're definitely unreliable. Seagull123 Φ 17:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BRB, just checking if the Daily Mail (2.5 million Twitter followers) has said anything yet. Oh. Why not simply take the sources in good faith until you find something which suggests otherwise? And if you're accusing these sites of being unreliable, are you also accusing me of being an unreliable editor for using these sources? If you've found a reason these sources are unreliable, other than "I've never heard of them, they have a low number of Twitter followers", I'd very much love to read it. Because this just seems like needless gatekeeping to me. ItsKesha (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail is a deprecated source on Wikipedia so we would likely discount them anyway. @ItsKesha: and @Seagull123: - if you haven't heard of those websites before, they are likely not notable enough. My Spidey senses are tingling in regards to "The Alternative UK", in particular. Just because an article has tonnes of sources doesn't mean it should be kept: those sources could be rehashed press releases or blogs, both of which shouldn't satisfy AfD decisions either. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter if the sources are notable, that's not even the debate here. Whether you've heard of a source does not affect the reliability of the source. ItsKesha (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, if the sources are not notable (blogs, unknown or obscure sites, self-published resources etc) then they hold less credibility and weight than notable sources (established newspapers, periodicals etc). A press release rehashed across hundreds of sites, perhaps word-for-word, is not likely to do the case for GNG any good. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help you all out here - Yorkshire Bylines is a Northern (ooh, biased!) offshoot of Byline Times, which was set up by Peter Jukes. The Alternative is an English offshoot of Danish political party Alternativet, set up by Uffe Elbæk. And RedAction is a new media with a full team of editors and journalists who have written and worked for other reputable sources. The information is easily available on all three websites. But you know, they don't have hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter! ItsKesha (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsKesha: just to make it clear - I am not accusing you of being "unreliable", I can't see that anyone else has accused you of such, and I have never done so. To address the issue of whether these sources that we're discussing can be considered reliable or not, I've looked at WP:SOURCE (part of the verifiability policy), and according to this, we should [b]ase articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - I have seen no evidence so far that the sources we're discussing here have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (emphasis added). Per ItsKesha's description above of what these sources are above, they appear to be more in the style of political blogs/alternative media, which - while useful as sources for what their publishers/writers believe on a subject - I don't believe count as reliable sources for WP:GNG's purposes: as they are unlikely to have a reputation for fact-checking, they may have issues with not being fully independent, and it's possible they may (correct me if I'm wrong) be self-published sources. Seagull123 Φ 17:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Independence piece was only an interview with the founder. It's not WP:SIGCOV and doesn't pass WP:NORG. I understand why you accepted, but I would have declined this at AfC. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/has-iran-sent-arms-to-libyan-warlord-haftar-violating-un-sanctions-42200
  2. ^ https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/intro-registration-rp.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1360322/Boris-Johnson-news-pm-northern-independence-party-proudfoot-Scotland-uk-politics-ont
  4. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/independent-north-england-devolution-yorkshire-manchester-north-east-b1481784.html
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignoring the canvassing, non policy based voting, spas getting bo weight and pure assertion this come down to source analysis that the Keep side has yet to do. I strongly advise someone arguing keep to actually list the best 3 and demonstrate how they meet RS
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to this article - two of the sources are for the flag colours, the rest seem to be general "what would an independent Northern England look like?" pieces, and the rest just seem to mention the party's new existence. It'd be much better suited to a subheading on an article thoroughly covering the different viewpoints and movements for devolution of some kind in the North of England. If NIP go on to be more notable, then this article will likely be re-created, but for now, as none of us happen to be Mystic Meg, I cannot see it being notable enough to stay.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, in the hope that some more !voters are willing to discuss which sources confer notability; the AfD closer cannot be expected to evaluate all the sources present on the page. If this does not occur, I would recommend a no consensus closure and speedy renomination with a semi- or EC-protected AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until Now (film)[edit]

Until Now (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)

Nothing found to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More