The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an early consensus. Missvain (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Headmaster (short story)[edit]

The Headmaster (short 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)

Doesn't cite any sources to establish notability, and I can't find any online. It's unlikely that a good sized article could be written about this story that doesn't just consist of a plot summary. DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any evidence that suggests this short story is notable, either. Lennart97 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Mr. Calder and Mr. Behrens. There could be an argument for having a redirect to the main page for the characters/series, but I can't find sourcing to justify this story having its own independent article. If there are any hidden beneath the multitude of false positives, I wasn't able to find them. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect per ReaderofthePack. This article was taken wholesale from Citizendium (which is allowed under both their policies and ours), but I'm surprised that it passed muster over there (admittedly, I'm not that familiar with CZ). There are no citations provided at all, and the last paragraph seems to be primarily opinion: "The abrupt conclusion of the story, however, along with its brief explanation as to how Calder had determined the Headmaster's identity, seems somewhat contrived and in the nature of a deus ex machina being suddenly pulled from the author's hatful of tricks. Whether it is a satisfactory ending is up to the individual reader to judge." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Short stories are rarely individually notable, and there is no evidence this one is an exception to the rule. If absolutely needed, you can redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability guidelines, no reviews found, no evidence it is notable for a stand alone article.Less Unless (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sign of the level of coverage or any other factor that might donate that this was notable enough a short story to merit its own article. Dunarc (talk) 23:55, 25 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, but the title will be redirected to Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union#History per WP:PRESERVE. BD2412 T 02:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond McGrath[edit]

Desmond McGrath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It does not appear he was a notable candidate, nor was he convicted. Article was written soon after his death at a time he was facing charges. I feel like this needs wider conversation than PROD StarM 22:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found a trivial book mention here, but nothing that makes the subject pass WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:SIGCOV. He was notable for his death, which got one sad news cycle. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's possible that he could get over our notability criteria as a trade unionist, but nothing here "inherently" clinches it in the absence of much better sourcing than this — on a ProQuest search I get a lot more glancing namechecks of his existence than I was expecting (specifically in the context of his unsuccessful run for political office, which isn't a notability-maker), but not a lot of notability-making coverage about him. To be fair, however, part of the problem is that in the database I have access to, the Newfoundland newspapers where he might have had the strongest and most WP:GNG-compatible coverage are included only post-2000, and only in abstract rather than full-text form — which means that if the article can be salvaged, I'm not the guy who can do it, and neither the substance nor the sourcing here are solid enough to extend him the benefit of the doubt in the meantime. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody who can access Newfoundland newspapers better than I can is able to write and source something much better than this, but nothing stated or sourced here is enough to exempt him from having to show more. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Brief merge to the union that he founded leaving the usual redirect. His only notability is as having organised the union, so that adding a few sentences to Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union#History would so the job. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 26 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MIDI Converter Studio[edit]

MIDI Converter Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

2009 contested PROD (courtesy @Closedmouth:). No indication of or sources found to establish notability. StarM 22:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, in all this time the issues haven't been addressed, so I can't see it happening now. Govvy (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of many useful, but non-notable software. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stavri Pone[edit]

Stavri Pone (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 sources for this author's article (other than his own site), and seemingly nothing notable about him or his works. I could not find any reliable sources, although any such sources may be in Albanian. ~EdGl talk 22:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 22:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 22:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of any awards or recognition, no notable works and no evidence of any independent sources writing about Pone Spiderone 22:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have not found any reliable sources mentioning the subject even though according to worldcat his books are located in the US Libraries. here Moreover, the creator of the article has made no other contributions except for this one - which makes me wonder - is it a COI? Less Unless (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 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. Closing based on an early consensus. Missvain (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Arnold (politician)[edit]

Jack Arnold (politician) (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:POLITICIAN. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while his service is appreciated and no doubt his Congressional campaign was worthy, having not been elected he falls short of the notability bar. Also the article has the distinct whiff of self-promotion in tone, as well as having been edited by Jacktoddarnold with the original draftspace article being created by an IP and most of the article built by another IP that were very likely either the subject or affiliated with the subject. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:POLITICIAN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:POLITICIAN Mztourist (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails both WP:SOLDIER and WP:POLITICIAN - Kolma8 (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win. To qualify for an article without having to win the election and serve in Congress, he would have to either (a) show that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway, or (b) show such an unusually large volume and depth and range of coverage, expanding far beyond just what every candidate in every election can always show, that he would have a credible claim to being much more special than most other candidates in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. This article is not passing either of those tests, however. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NPOL - please thank him for his service, but it's snowing for Christmas. The sourcing is terrible as I've ever seem - Ballotpedia, his own campaign website, blogs, some other candidates' website, and social media. He has 205 followers on Twitter. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of most successful European football clubs by major European and domestic honours won.[edit]

List of most successful European football clubs by major European and domestic honours won. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

We've deleted similar lists like this before, if memory serves me. The main issues are that this is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, an example of what Wikipedia is not. Spiderone 21:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being deleted? It is an accurate list of honours won by football clubs in europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaulBhoy (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern with this list is the fact that there don't appear to be reliable sources comparing clubs in this way. Merging domestic cup & league with major European titles and then ordering by total won is a very bizarre way of comparing how successful they are. It's bordering on original research. Also, the inclusion criteria are odd. Why is there only one Romanian team but three from almost every other country? Spiderone 22:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we already have List of UEFA club competition winners which presents this kind of information is a clear, logical and notable manner. This article is a mess. GiantSnowman 22:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do people find a search for a total list of honours won across major european and domestic competitions? There is currently no source. This clearly provides that insight. All data has been sourced from other published wiki articles. The reason for the Romania team is that there is one clear stand out team, no other team comes close so wouldn't be included. This is an article that would be valued as its discussion comes up regularly.

The 'List of UEFA club competition winners' article does not present the same information as this article. It is missing more than half of the data.

• Delete per nom. It's defintely OR and SYNTH as well as a very arbitrary, non-established way of measuring a club's success. Lennart97 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove any reference to success then and it will be a list of most European football clubs by major European and domestic honours won. It's a valid list that people want to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaulBhoy (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SaulBhoy: What matters is notability, and notability is not based on "what people want to see"; it's based on coverage by reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:No original research. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~ (see Wikipedia:Signatures). Lennart97 (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the two links, thanks. If I can provide links to independent sources regarding the topic and links to reliable published sources to back this up will that alleviate the concerns here? SaulBhoy (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. If you can provide reliable sources showing that this is an established way of comparing European clubs then it will merit inclusion as it will prove that it's not original research. Spiderone 07:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Combining European and domestic competitions or even comparing the number of domestic wins between different countries doesn't seem useful. Nigej (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article uses arbitrary inclusion criteria (no league cups/supercups/ECWC's) as do the sources (someone's opinion and one of them is about a list by the unreliable Daily Star). Needs deletion not improvement. Dougal18 (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other way to actually view and maintain a list of total trophies won by European clubs or even Global clubs? I can't find one and this is an opportunity to have this in place. League cups, supercups and ECWC win were not originally included as they arent considered major honours. Would include the full list if needed though. I was also viewing an article "List of footballers with 500 or more goals" on wikipedia. What does that article have that this one does not? To me that article seem full of unreliable sources. 155.201.38.5 (talk) 15:32, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur M. Menadier[edit]

Arthur M. Menadier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

2009 N/C No Consenseus. No evidence since of further posthumous notability. StarM 21:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seems like his only "claim to fame" is a Johnson & Johnson ad, and it doesn't even seem worth mentioning in that article (maybe if there were already a section in that article about their ad campaigns...). ~EdGl talk 22:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit: I just noticed that this is the second nomination (I guess "N/C" in the nomination meant "no consensus"), and the article was created by the grandchild of the article's subject. So add "conflict of interest" as another strike against keeping this article. ~EdGl talk 01:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, @EdGl:. I have edited my nomination so it's clearer. StarM 03:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to meeting the GNG. It is because we let such clearly non-notable articles pass AfD in 2009 that we have such troubles keeping Wikipedia accurate and meeting verifiability now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, and WP:CREATIVE. An advertising person can be notable, but it's rare, such as Shelly Palmer, who wrote the Meow_Mix jingle. (My apologies, but you will now have that stupid Meow meow meow meow stuck in your head for the next 24 hours.) Bearian (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in good Wikipedian fashion (just as we are told the subject moved to Rye in good adman fashion). The article is highly biased, written like an obituary, and utterly lacks significant personal independent coverage in reliable sources. FalconK (talk) 04:58, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Gul Mallah[edit]

Ali Gul Mallah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unfortunately, I can't find any evidence that he satisfies WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC. His roles have been minor ones and he hasn't had many roles... Spiderone 21:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing that can be found online indicates notability. Kolma8 (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet our very broad inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect, non-notable actor for now, it may be WP:TOOSOON Spudlace (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 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. Closing based on an early consensus. Missvain (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Airlines Flight 117[edit]

Indian Airlines Flight 117 (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 appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT. Available coverage appears to be limited to primary sources. While there may be some secondary coverage available in newspaper archives that I can't access, as an event with minimal lasting consequences, it would likely still fall short of meeting the WP:LASTING criterion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a notable accident in any way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident is a similar type of incident with same fatality number. Either both should be kept or both deleted. As for the sourcing, the incident of 1978 would have been reported on offline newspapers. An incident of this magnitude would have surely been extensively covered to pass our GNG case. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, I do agree that Lasting seems to be lacking. Changed my !vote to delete. I have moved some of the relevant content to Begumpet_Airport#Accidents_and_incidents. So a redirect is also acceptable to me. Since some editors have suggested deleting the other one too, Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ping @Rosguill, The Bushranger, Bearian, and Deeday-UK:--Walrus Ji (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Sad, but not more than yesterday's news. We do not have an article on every suicide by cop or airplane. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete that and the Austin incident too. Stragglers hit by aircraft are somehow unusual, but that doesn't necessarily make them encyclopedic. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per OP. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- as I gather any useful content has been merged. This does not strike me as a notable incident. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The paragraph at Begumpet Airport is sufficient. Estheim (talk) 00:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Henry (political strategist)[edit]

Mike Henry (political strategist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Run-of-the-mill political staffer fails WP:GNG. KidAd talk 20:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being chief of staff to a senator is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees a Wikipedia article — it can get a person in the door if they can be shown to clear WP:GNG on their sourceability, but is not an instant free notability pass just because the person exists. But the footnotes here aren't enough to make him permanently notable for this: one of them just goes to a (deadlinked) directory of all of its author's content on her employer's website, and not to any individual piece that might have spoken to Henry's potential notability; two are stacked onto a single incident that would just make him a WP:BLP1E at best; and the only one left is a simple employment announcement blurb of the type that thousands of people in politics can show without qualifying for a Wikipedia article just because of the existence of an employment announcement blurb. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - he was chief of staff to a Vice-Presidential candidate; I'm not sure that is enough. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 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. Closing based on an early consensus. Missvain (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Telephone Cooperative[edit]

Citizens Telephone Cooperative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Tagged for notability since 2009, failed merger (to New Auburn, Wisconsin, where I also might have sent it) earlier this year. I cannot find any evidence this is a notable company under this name, or Citizens Connected, which appears to be its current name. StarM 20:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• courtesy ping @Ravenswing, DGG, and Dolotta: who were involved in prior 2020 article activity. StarM 20:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'm all for it, obviously; in over eleven years, no one's troubled themselves to demonstrate either notability or a GNG pass for this outfit, and attempts at both merger and redirecting have been reverted without rationale. Ravenswing 03:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete By all means! It serves about the number of people within about half a mile of my house. There is low likelihood that it will ever meet WP:ORGDEPTH. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a merge to the town would have been appropriate if it weresponsored by the town, but it seems that's not the case. So there's no suitable merge . DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Royalbroil 05:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Barely found anything about the company. Easily fails WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 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 redirect to Leytonstone tube station. MBisanz ^talk 18:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leytonstone bus station[edit]

Leytonstone bus station (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 significant coverage found to establish notability - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Leytonstone tube station, though I don't see anything that's mergeable. No evidence that the bus station is special enough to be split off the tube station it serves Jumpytoo Talk 00:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Leytonstone tube station per above Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:02, 30 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semaphore[edit]

Semaphore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Content fork of flag semaphore, where this has redirected for eight years, with little more than a dic def and apparently copied from that article without attribution. Redirect should be restored. MB 19:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Flag semaphore, I guess? We obviously need to cover the topic of semaphore in this encyclopedia, but it's not clear to me what the difference is between flag semaphore and any other kind of semaphore. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: semaphore should be the main article, the article flag semaphore is the fork. Flag semaphore is just one type of semaphore! Blockhouse321 (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I didn't start a WP:MERGE because there is nothing to merge that isn't already in the article. The wording is so similar that this article was probably based on that one. So I think the proper action is Redirect. MB 22:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article is notable has plenty of potential for expansion and that is all that is required for the article to be kept. The article is only a few hours old and a +stub; give editors a chance to expand the article over time. Rome was not built in day! Blockhouse321 (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that this AfD should not have been started before you had a chance to show what you wanted to do with the article and I often !vote for a procedural keep when that happens. I'm guessing, though, that nothing that you want to cover would not fit in the much better developed optical telegraph, and I'd like to avoid a confusing taxonomy of articles when one more general article would serve. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Semaphore has several different variants, not just optical telegraph; hence, the need for a separate main article for semaphore. Blockhouse321 (talk)! — Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Optical telegraph, which is a more general concept than 'Semaphore telegraph' and less ambiguous than the broad term 'Semaphore'. Note that the article proposed for deletion is more general than Flag semaphore, since Þjarkur added a section on Railway semaphore signal since the AfD began. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since 2012 this page has redirected to Flag semaphore. If it's deleted, putting it back the way it was seems like the best move. The optical telegraph is a more obscure topic. ApLundell (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found a BBC article titled How Napoleon's semaphore telegraph changed the world at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22909590 and added some information into the article. The article list the different methods of semaphore, so is a valid list article, aiding in navigation. Dream Focus 12:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article "Semaphore" it is more than flags. Our article reflects the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Semaphore, a topic the Britannica considered worthy of attention as a primary topic. Wikipedia, strangely, has not had a primary topic for a long time. User:Blockhouse321 has done a great job expanding the article. -- GreenC 16:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is definitely needed and is well-sourced. Thriley (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This might have profited from being left to mature for a few days before being thrown to the wolves. In any case, the editor has turned it into a perfectly fine hub article for related topics during the past week. Nice work. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - changed opinion following argument of ApLundell — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:15, 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarathil Kallanmar[edit]

Nagarathil Kallanmar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is 8-word film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zero coverage - clear WP:GNG failure. SK2242 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's hard to find any justification for this one; even the database entries are noticeably blank! Spiderone 19:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The are no reviews or notable mentions, nothing to support notability. Less Unless (talk) 16:02, 25 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) 20:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thamburaan[edit]

Thamburaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a ten word film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this one definitely fails NFILM and GNG Spiderone 22:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wow...10 words... talk about WP:INDISCRIMINATE... Kolma8, did you consider WP:PROD for any of these? -2pou (talk) 23:42, 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greeshmam[edit]

Greeshmam (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 film article is under 30 words and fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I did a quick search but couldn't find anything other than database listings Spiderone 18:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to being a notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:BEFORE is biased against foreign topics, so it's no surprise that I didn't find anything, but if this is all the content that could be added over six years, there must not be any coverage out there. -- 2pou (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:41, 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desam[edit]

Desam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Unsourced. Not much comes on a g-search. Kolma8 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article lacks reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:12, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boiling Spring, Albemarle County, Virginia[edit]

Boiling Spring, Albemarle 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)

Not quite sure what this is/was, but it doesn't seem notable. No results for Boiling Spring in Albemarle County, VA newspapers.com results. Gmaps says these coordinates are in the middle of some woods. Appears on topos, with no buildings evidentally associated with it. This mentions a Boiling Spring plantation. Mention of a Boiling Spring Farm here. If I had to guess, this is a named farm, not a legally recognized populated place. WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG do not seem to be met. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I found it on Google Maps, and it seems to be a hamlet consisting of about 15 houses, some out-buildings, and a general store, the "Snak Shak" (sic.). Is that enough? Ping me, please. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Bearian: Which Boiling Spring did you find? There's this one, and a second in a different county. The other one appears to be more legitimate, so is Gmaps bringing up this one or the Allegheny county one? Hog Farm _Bacon 21:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha, I think the one I found is in Alleghany County. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aakasha Gopuram[edit]

Aakasha Gopuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

1. 1 is primary
2. 2 is dead
3. 3 is dead
4. 4 is a REDIFF review fails as it is not a full-length review by "a nationally known critic" see WP:NFILM. There is no author on the review.
5. 5 is dead
6. 6 is a decent review, but fails the same way as #4
7. 7 is an interview with the composer
8. 8 and #9 is mentioning the film in passing.

Found another review [[1]], but the same issues as with #4.

If you will find how this movie meets WP:NFILM and WP:GNG please let me know.

Thanks,

Kolma8 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ref #3 is available on the wayback machine and suggests notability. Dsp13 (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Rediff, Zee News and Times of India. Nationally known critic means that the publication has a national audience not the reputation of the critic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Atlantic306's rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:07, 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Belkin[edit]

Avi Belkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Insufficiently notable per WP:BIO Sonnenradical (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, almost too early in his career. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After creating this nomination, I noticed that the article was created and substantially edited by User:Belkinavi who is likely the subject of the article. So, in addition to the already mentioned notability concerns, there is also COI (Which of course is not, in itself a grounds for deletion). I noted this on the article's talk page as well Sonnenradical (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom + the possible COI especially because of WP:TOOSOON. BJackJS talk 19:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very clearly a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have cleaned up the article from any puff, COI, and excessive information. gidonb (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, award-winning filmmaker. I have added info and sources. No grounds for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:DIRECTOR #3 and the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Speedy keep. Nominator created a dormant, double blank (user/talk_user) account in February 2019. On 15 December 2020, nom started and finished editing with the immediate nomination of just one single article and a COI comment on its talk page and here. Never touched anything but Avi Belkin. As I mentioned above, the nomination intro does not hold water. Even more about this nomination seems wrong. gidonb (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Meanwhile, the nominator has been blocked. Was a sockpuppet of a well-known sockpuppeteer. gidonb (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple RS articles on each of his last two movies, meets GNG. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:12, 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 keep. Consensus is that the sources found by Cunard show the article can be improved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chowbus[edit]

Chowbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not enough sources to back up the page. Only four are not enough. Akronowner (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Akronowner (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT: fails the SIRS test but can be kept once it is met. The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
• Comment Agree with the above, more sources would help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG:
  1. Customers of food delivery app Chowbus had their home addresses leaked. The breach appears to have affected hundreds of thousands of users. - Business Insider
  2. Asian Food Delivery Service Arrives in San Diego - Eater San Diego
  3. A delivery service for Asian restaurants launches in Houston - Houston Chronicle SK2242 (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Baker, Suzanne (2018-07-20). "Chowbus service delivers dishes from Chicago's Chinatown to Naperville residents". Naperville Sun. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23 – via Chicago Tribune.
  2. Balter, Emma (2020-08-18). "A delivery service for Asian restaurants launches in Houston". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
  3. Klein, Michael (2020-11-12). "Creator of Chowbus App Carves Out A Niche". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
  4. Stueven, Michele (2020-09-23). "Asian Food Delivery App Chowbus Sheds Light on The L.A. Appetite". LA Weekly. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
  5. Pletz, John (2020-07-24). "Apparently the world did need another food delivery service. Chinese-food delivery company Chowbus recently raised $33 million and is growing fast". Crain's Chicago Business. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
  6. Dallke, Jim (2020-10-14). "Asian food delivery startup Chowbus raises another $30M". Chicago Inno. American City Business Journals. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
  7. Abrams, Lawrence (2020-10-06). "Chowbus delivery service breached, hacker emails data to users". Bleeping Computer. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
  8. Shieber, Jonathan (2020-07-22). "Investors drop off $33 million for Chowbus, a delivery service for 'mom and pop' Asian restaurants". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
  9. Bratskeir, Kate (2020-08-03). "How food delivery upstarts are fighting the tyranny of Grubhub". Fast Company. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chowbus to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with the caveat that an editor adds at least some of the sources to the stub, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cunard has shown enough coverage to pass WP:GNG.Less Unless (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cunard's sources above fail WP:NCORP which is the relevant guideline for companies since they're all based on company announcements. Not a single reference meets WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:11, 28 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SK2242 (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yassin Karim[edit]

Yassin Karim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. PROD tag removed by creator, who claims Iraqi league is fully-pro (which isn't so per current evaluation) Withdrawing this nomination due to new sources.BlameRuiner (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - sources fail to establish notability; one of them was an announcement that he doesn't want to play a match, the rest were just routine announcements (e.g. signing a new contract). None showed WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone 11:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Iraqi Premier League is now listed at WP:FPL, I am striking my comment Spiderone 18:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does he fail the criteria when the criteria is that he needs to play at least one professional game and the articles show that he has played professional games. Do you think that an article will be written about a player who refused to play a game if it wasn't notable? I.E if a player who never played, no one will be writing an article about that. Also, how is the Iraqi league not fully pro when they participate in the Asian Champions League, which has a rule that the league needs to be fully professional in order to qualify a team, and given the fact that you know, it's fully professional as all players have a contract with a club and are paid, making it a professional league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitheboss55 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the Iraqi league is fully professional and can provide appropriate sources then please start a discussion at the appropriate place, which is WT:FPL Spiderone 13:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have found the confusion, the mistranslation of sources used to classify the league as "not professional". The word translated as professional actually means foreign, as in Arabic the word for foreign players is the same as professional players. The Asian Football Federation, as shown in it's Entry Manual for AFC Club Competitions (2021 Edition) in article 4 says that Member Associations must meet all of the ACL Criteria as set out below in order to obtain direct slots for the ACL: The relevant criteria, Article 4.1.4 says; Organisation of Professional Football League. As you can see by 2020 AFC Champions League Iraq had a direct spot to the ACL, meaning that they have satisfied Artcile 4.1.4, meaning that the Iraqi premier league is a fully professional football league. I cant seem to figure out how to cite a pdf but if you google^[1] the entry manual and click on the link provided by the website of the Asian football federation you can clearly check it out for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitheboss55 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete

Based on the evidence provided above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitheboss55 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete

If no one else has any objections, I would like to remove the notice as the Iraqi premier league has been reclassified as a pro league in Wikipedia's list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitheboss55 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Due to recent reassessment of Iraqi league (now considered fully-pro since 2019/20 season), I'm ready to withdraw my nomination if a source is added to the article that clearly shows him playing in Iraqi league since 2019/20 season. So far, finding the squads for Iraqi league matches have been problematic (most websites only list scores and goalscorers). --BlameRuiner (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Reference added, the article states that he conceded a "rocket from Saad Abdul Emir" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitheboss55 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alitheboss55: Please sign your posts. SK2242 (talk) 12:51, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palangal[edit]

Palangal (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 film fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Couldn't find any info of its notability. No real references. A g-search returns WP article and two links to the movie on a streaming services. Kolma8 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia must stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:13, 30 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 18:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aalolam[edit]

Aalolam (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 film fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

Couldn't find any info of its notability. No real references. There is a direct link to its Youtube page, which is probably the whole reason for this article. Kolma8 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2019-03 Alolam redirect

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

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

The result was redirect to List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines. MBisanz ^talk 18:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Mu Epsilon[edit]

Tau Mu Epsilon (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 fraternity. Redirect to List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines would suffice. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ORG. As this is a fraternity that exists at only one university, I don't presume that it's notable. The only source cited is an archived version of the fraternity's own web site -- the web site itself seems to no longer exist -- with no independent sources being provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. EPIC STYLE ^{(LET'S TALK)} 02:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with delete and redirect. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while the Fraternity and Sorority Project team begin work on it. I recently moved it to a more visible section on our watchlist, and until now it has gone unimproved. The group dates to 1952, so is not a recently formed local. Some locals are acceptable if they have a history of ten years or greater according to the rules we are circulating. I've added a set of to-do tasks that will improve the article, now listed on its Talk page. This article may also have gone unnoticed/unimproved within English Wikipedia as it is from a Spanish speaking country. Nevertheless, our Project includes fraternities in the Philippines, in Puerto Rico, Canada, France and Germany (and a few others). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax MN (talk • contribs) 16:37, December 28, 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - does not come close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow Core[edit]

Hollow Core (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 pass WP:GNG or WP:NBAND, sourcing is almost solely from non-reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree that the coverage is insufficient for an article Spiderone 19:04, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Collison[edit]

Meghan Collison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am re-nominating this for deletion. In good conscience, I can't justify inclusion of an article that has virtually unverifiable/unsourceable content. For 10 years there has been a BLP sources template and as it sits, the only source is models.com's profile page and an Of The Minute feature. That's all. I'm not denying notability as a model (7 Vogue Italia covers. Prada campaign, etc.) I'm just saying, even with the sources another editor offered in the previous AFD, it cannot sufficiently rise to the level of the guidelines. Trillfendi (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not see the level of sourcing here we would need to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The same verbiage on different pages about her. No real secondary sources. Kolma8 (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not finding enough in-depth coverage to show that she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 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. Closing based on an early consensus. Missvain (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsi Gabbard bibliography[edit]

Tulsi Gabbard bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Redundant forked article of a notable politician. Her article already has this info. None of the books are notable for own article. PROD tag was removed. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of the books have a Wikipedia article, all of them are externally linked. Trillfendi (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only two books on this list were actually written by Gabbard herself. The rest aren't even biographies, they're all independently published coloring books or notebooks with her face/name in/on them. It's unclear if these books were even okayed by Gabbard herself. Even if those two books were especially notable, there are only two of them. Does not require a separate page. Benmite (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per nom's rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was epxecting this to list various op-eds, articles, etc. that Gabbard had written (we know Senator Cotton wrote at least one op-ed for the NYT, it was not an unreasonable expectation). Even then, we should just merge it back into the main article. This has two autobiographies, which is not enough to justify a seperate article on this matter. I see no reason to catalogue the coloring books of Gabbard's picture at all. We do not have Russell M. Nelson bibliography even though he wrote an autobiography and multiple books and medical articles and religious articles, we do not have Dallin H. Oaks bibliography despite multiple scholarly works on law and history, nor so many more. I am unconvinced anyone needs a seperate bibliography article, even those who wrote a whole lot of books (we have a few), but Gabbard is clearly not someone who needs one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have Slavoj Žižek bibliography but he wrote 43 books just in English, plus a huge number of articles, and books in I believe at least 3 other languages, and co-edited or such even more books in English. I am not sure that we need that level of detail or information, but it is clearly more needed than this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:LIST and WP:FORK. FWIW, as they say, I'm "not a fan." Bearian (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with less than 10 entries (and many of those being coloring books), this is clearly not a plausible stand-alone topic. Nothing needs merging and no need for a redirect to Tulsi_Gabbard#Published_works. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:04, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junichi Watanabe (footballer, born 1988)[edit]

Junichi Watanabe (footballer, born 1988) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is essentially the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shun Sato (footballer, born 1990), only this footballer played 3 league games for the same club, not 1 game. At least 80 AFD discussions (50 of which are accessible through the AFD link above) say that this is not enough because of the WP:GNG fail. And mind you, I declined to nominate the players with 6 or 7 league games for deletion. Geschichte (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is clear consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. GiantSnowman 22:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG, so nom's rationale holds up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 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 16:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masaya Sato (footballer, born 1989)[edit]

Masaya Sato (footballer, born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is essentially the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shun Sato (footballer, born 1990), only this footballer played 4 league games for the same club, not 1 game. At least 80 AFD discussions (50 of which are accessible through the AFD link above) say that this is not enough because of the WP:GNG fail. And mind you, I declined to nominate the players with 6 or 7 league games for deletion. Geschichte (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - attempted a search but just kept getting stuff about the much more notable player of the same name. I am not seeing any evidence that a stand-alone article is justified, especially considering that they appear to have only played 136 mins of professional sport Spiderone 17:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is clear consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. GiantSnowman 22:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG, therefore as per the arguments made by GiantSnowman and the nom as per WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja Dham Dev Singh[edit]

Maharaja Dham Dev Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotion puff piece on whats likely a family member or some such thing, fails GNG/A7 and was previously deleted on copyvio grounds about a week ago. I suspect an SPA here, but I'm deferring what I suspect is an impending block for NOTHERE contributions until the community puts its two cents in on the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't know enough about Indian semi-royalty such as this. Can we get an expert to chime in? Bearian (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep History stuff from this far back sure would not have much sources online, so based on existing sources and assuming good faith, it should be kept and researched for inaccuracy. Peter303x (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reading some of the existing articles on Sakarwar Rajput and other medieval Indian history pieces, the article here appears to be legitimate. As the previous discussion suggests, I'd rather keep and try to improve.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, that's a pretty weak argument. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - there were a lot of "kings" in medieval India, who had the title but were not sovereigns, so I'm not sure this person was actually per se notable. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Lingheim[edit]

Susanne Lingheim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

According to the article, Lingheim won the Best Art Direction-Set decoration Academy Award. The official Academy Award link [2] says that the sole winner was Anna Asp ("WINNER FANNY & ALEXANDER Anna Asp"). The link also includes the video of the Art Direction nominees (starts after 4 minutes). As you can see even there, Asp was the sole nominee for the category. According to the svenskfilmdatabas, Lingheim was a "propwoman" for the film, not the co-Art director/Set director. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Interesting! Yes, delete based on the source from the Academy. Good sleuthing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It does appear to be good sleuthing, sure enough only Anna Asp comes up to accept the award in the video from the ceremony. But wait a second. I looked in contemporary sources from 1984 newspapers and found the following: The nomination list from the LA Times in February lists both women for this award. A "ballot" which ran the day before the ceremony also listed both women for this award. And finally, all the wire stories in newspapers around the country after the ceremony list both women for this award. Here's an example from the Star-Tribune in Minneapolis. I have no idea why the presenters only read Anna Asp's name, unless it was a mistake and/or they new Lingheim was not present at the ceremony and wouldn't be coming up? These sources are from newspapers.com and should be added to the article. --Krelnik (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the same video Marik Vos-Lundh wins the award but is not present in the ceremony. Maybe whoever wrote the AA database based on what happens in the video. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Krelnik. /Julle (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yes, excellent sleuthing. However, when push comes to shove, I'm going to have to go with the official Oscars website rather than newspaper clippings. Rather than the official site being wrong and possibly basing their database on watching a video (seriously?), I'm going to go with the newspapers accidently including an assistant perhaps, and all of them repeating the mistake. Which happens really frequently (not regarding Oscars, but just in general, when the first news organization gets it wrong and it gets repeated over and over). And without that Oscar win (or even the nomination), doesn't meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Oscars site is a not great primary source; newspapers being secondary are better. The footage of Asp alone being named and accepting is the best evidence that Lingheim didn't receive an Oscar. The "best production design" Oscar was usually given to the art director (Asp) AND the set decorator (Lingheim). Why Lingheim was once given as a nominee and then a winner in newspapers but was not mentioned by the Academy at the ceremony or in its database is an interesting question that perhaps the Margaret Herrick Library could answer. I can dig into Variety archives later tonight to see if they've got something different going on. I suspect it was assumed that Lingheim was nominated when she in fact was not. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found nothing different in Variety and other trade publications. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For establishing notability, secondary sources are preferable. But the Academy is the entity that determines whether someone is an Oscar winner or not, so they are actually the best source for that fact, notwithstanding that they are a primary source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: For what it's worth, I did a search in Retriever Research, which hosts the main modern Swedish newspaper archive, and Lingheim is repeatedly listed when the news go through lists of Swedish Oscar winners through the years, the first article I found (as it doesn't go much further back) from the year 2000; the latest one is from 2018. This includes the major national newspapers, the national public broadcasting company and so on. I can find no reference to this being a mistake. While it's of course possible that this is a mistake that has lived on and just kept being repeated, Fanny and Alexander is one the major films in the history of Swedish film making: someone ought to have noticed and corrected it, so that Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå wouldn't keep repeating it. But I've written to the Ingmar Bergman Foundation (Stiftelsen Ingmar Bergman), who really ought to know, and asked if they have an authoritative source here. /Julle (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject's claim to notability can't be based on her winning an Oscar because she clearly didn't win it. She isn't listed in the Academy Awards database at [3]; she wasn't announced at the ceremony as being one of the nominees (see [4]); and she wasn't listed in the ceremony program, either (see [5]). If I had to guess why there might have been a discrepancy with newspapers listing Lingheim as a co-nominee, perhaps it was because Lingheim's credit (in the Swedish language) might have led the Academy to believe that she deserved to share in the nomination as the set decorator, but then after the nominations were initially announced they determined that she held a lower-level position on the production and should not have been nominated as such. But I'm just speculating. (I would like to find out what Julle hears from the Ingmar Bergman Foundation.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard back yet; I assume that means they won't reply until after the holidays. /Julle (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reviewing the references, the conclusions of Metropolitan90 seem valid and supported by the evidence available to us. If new evidence is found or the Oscars site is corrected (could be an error on their part, we don't know for sure), the page can be re-created. CosmicNotes (talk) 06:16, 30 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CybExer Technologies[edit]

CybExer Technologies (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 organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search leads me to primary sources and unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Google news brings up lots of content. This needs to be researched, but definitely improved if its kept. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide us with this “contents” that show the organization has been discussed with in-depth significant coverage and most importantly; in reliable sources? Celestina007 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are insufficient claims in the article to meet WP:ORGCRIT while google finds some news articles most are either minor mentions, or not in English. There is no foreign language version of the article linked. Given "These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals." as the criteria. Delete seems to be the best choice here. Jeepday (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A News search does bring up quite a number of hits. Sadly I don't read the ones in Russian or Estonian, but the hits in English appear to be reliable, with the company seeming to be a leader in the cyber-security field in the European Union. There are multiple mentions in article published by Baltic World and Estonian Times, where the company plays key roles in Europe-wide cyber attack simulations. There is plenty of room for improvement, but we have enough in my mind to keep and better the article rather than to delete.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nowhere near enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Lots of mentions, but nothing in-depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE: fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

• Keep There are fair hits in google search and the company has fairly good reach in Europe. I am in agreement with Concertmusic here. One hit I found was this one, [6], showing they are providing courses in 13 different languages. The other interesting fact is they have a contract with the European Space Agency, [7]. That's actually a fairly big deal, as it's hard for companies to get contracts with ESA. There is not a lot in the English language, but a fair number of hits in Estonian. That's why I lean towards keep. I've linked the article to Eesti wiki, not much there either. But I feel it can be improved to satisfy GNG if worked on. Govvy (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two new sources added in compliance with WP:RS including one showing the company provides training for the Ukrainian police cadets. The company works at the international level with governments as shown by the sources added. Significantly more exist on google news search. Article should be improved with expansion and more refs, not deleted. CosmicNotes (talk) 06:33, 30 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 redirect to Lucius Calpurnius Bestia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bestia (family)[edit]

Bestia (family) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is now obsolete, since the two persons described therein have their own pages as of now. There was also no "Bestia family" worthy of mention: the article owes its current format to how the entries are grouped up in the 1911 Britannica. Avilich (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Calpurnia gens. It's not unlikely that someone researching one of the Bestiae is looking for information about how they were all related. Presumably they did constitute a family, although it looks as if there's an intervening generation that avoided public life. I note that the article owes its format primarily to the concept of the "prosopography page", articles listing multiple biographies of homonymous Romans that each received only a couple of paragraphs. Grouping them has some value, although I've never been convinced that it's better to exclude Romans who don't share all tria nomina and include all who do, than to group them by actual relationship, which is why I generally favour splitting. But not all editors agree with this assessment, so generally I've left prosopography pages alone, and added hatnotes to each section leading to more detailed biographical articles. In this case, the individual biographies contain everything that's in the original, and there were only two persons covered, so it might as well be a redirect; by title it would best go to the gens page, which lists all known members of this family. P Aculeius (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect but to Lucius Calpurnius Bestia, which is a dabpage for the two articles. Bestia is a credible search term, so that it is best that we do not delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect but to Lucius Calpurnius Bestia as argued by Peterkingiron. The family does not exist as its own subsection but rather as part of the Calpurnia gens and having these cognomen "families" represented on Wikipedia will only lead to confusion and misconceptions in regards to who was family with who. CutieyKing (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - While I understand the impetus for the redirect, Bestia already exists as a dab page. If a redirect is warranted, the better target is Calpurnia gens#Calpurnii Bestiae, in fact, an argument could be made that Lucius Calpurnius Bestia should also redirect there, since it includes another entry not on the Lucius page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 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 redirect to Islamic University, Bangladesh. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Islamic Education and Research, Islamic University[edit]

Institute of Islamic Education and Research, Islamic University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to see why this Institute within a university is notable. Except some regular news, e.g. admission test on Sept 23, IU publishes results of IIER admission test, there is no significant coverage. Most of sources also aren’t WP:RS. I am ok with merge to IUB. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But this institution is so much aged. Many people have been educated from now on. I think this institution have been contribute on education research into university. And Banglapedia has clearly stated about this institution.^[2][3] Prodipto Deloar (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prodipto Deloar (talk) 29:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From you userpage i can see you have WP:COI here. Anyway one, two mentions doesn't mean it's automatically notable for wikipedia. Need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge to the parent institution, not enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to parent org. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. Article does not have WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Most of the sources in the article are not IS RS and others are simply mentions. BEFORE showed more mentions, but no SIGCOV.   // Timothy :: talk  17:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article creator and Keep vote above seems to have a disclosed COI with the subject.   // Timothy :: talk 

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. ATD close. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Gorton (cricketer)[edit]

John Gorton (cricketer) (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 evidence of any notability. Meets the very low requirements of WP:NCRIC, which is being disputed right now. Entries in three statistical databases (and presumably some passing mentions in match reports) are not sufficient to be considered notable enough for a separate article. A redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers or a delete seem like the best solutions. Fram (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NCRIC. The guideline is being disputed by Fram, so take that for what it's worth. Article was redirected, then expanded. At worst, restore the redirect. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC on NCRIC. I'm hardly the only one disputing it, general agreement is for either scrapping it or rewriting it to make it a lot tighter. Fram (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. 2020 marked the year that specialist projects could no longer make inclusions based on guidelines contrary to Wikipedia's general guidelines. The folks in WikiProject Football have taken this on board, and started deleting articles—by the numbers—on players with only 1 to 5 pro-tier games. Rugby has been cleaned up recently, and now the turn has come to cricket. Including players who are written about only in a couple of match reports, trivial or non-independent news is no longer feasible in Wikipedia, though it should be discussed on a case-by-case basis (although redirecting is often okay), and in this case there is no sensible reason for keeping. Geschichte (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is time that we delete all these one game, one match articles unless there is truly a very clear passing of GNG. We do not declare academics notable because they were the teacher of record for one class, and that would involve a lot more time than one game. For that matter, we do not declare academics notable just because they publish one book with an academic press. Nor is every writer notable just because they publish one novel. Even actors are expected to have multiple significant roles in notable productions, so passing sportsmen when they play in just one match or game is just absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This FAILS WP:NCRIC because SPORTCRIT on the same page says "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." Author needs to stop creating zero-notability perma-substub "articles", whether they've played just the bare one match or not. Reywas92^Talk 18:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect with any relevant information merged to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. This has been established as a reasonable compromise over a period of time and articles like this where there is clearly some notability but not enough evidence of clear sourcing to maintain a stand alone article. I'm not convinced that, given the usual outcome, that it's a good idea to be sending this sort of article to AfD and I don't quite understand the delete votes given that this is now pretty much the default result at AfD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. We shouldn't be making or keeping articles sourced only to statistical databases about cricketers with a single first-class match. No sign of GNG being met, and possible revisions of NCRIC to exclude these type of articles are underway. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for domestic cricketers and by consensus is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met. The only sources we have are databases which do not establish notability per SPORTCRIT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:51, 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 redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Clear consensus not to have a standalone. ATD close. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Anderson[edit]

Hayden Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks notability. Routine, minimal coverage in match reports, entries in cricket databases, and a source which is not only dubious for reliability, but more importantly is very dubious whether it is even about the same person.

Anderson meets the very low standards of WP:NCRIC, which is currently under dispute for that exact reason. I redirected the page to List of Otago representative cricketers, which was reverted. I still support that redirect instead of deletion as probably the best outcome here. Fram (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NCRIC. The guideline is being disputed by Fram, so take that for what it's worth. Article was redirected, then expanded. At worst, restore the redirect. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC on NCRIC. I'm hardly the only one disputing it, general agreement is for either scrapping it or rewriting it to make it a lot tighter. Fram (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. 2020 marked the year that specialist projects could no longer make inclusions based on guidelines contrary to Wikipedia's general guidelines. The folks in WikiProject Football have taken this on board, and started deleting articles—by the numbers—on players with only 1 to 5 pro-tier games. Rugby has been cleaned up recently, and now the turn has come to cricket. Including players who are written about only in a couple of match reports, trivial or non-independent news is no longer feasible in Wikipedia, though it should be discussed on a case-by-case basis (although redirecting is often okay), and in this case there is no sensible reason for keeping. Geschichte (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article subject clearly does not pass GNG. GNG is the minimum we require of all articles, and we should delete any article that does not meet it. In reality we should use SNGs for considerations like politicians where many people will superficially pass a loose reading of GNG, but it will be cases like unelected candidates, who so often pass so low, that it is just not reasonable to create articles on every single one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This FAILS NCRIC because WP:SPORTCRIT on the same page says "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." It also says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." Author needs to stop creating zero-notability perma-substub "articles", whether they've played just the bare one match or not. Reywas92^Talk 18:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect with any relevant information merged to List of Otago representative cricketers. This has been established as a reasonable compromise over a period of time and articles like this where there is clearly some notability but not enough evidence of clear sourcing to maintain a stand alone article. I'm not convinced that, given the usual outcome, that it's a good idea to be sending this sort of article to AfD and I don't quite understand the delete votes given that this is now pretty much the default result at AfD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as subject of article meets WP:NCRIC, having played two first-class matches in New Zealand. I note that WP:NCRIC is currently under discussion, but until such time as that discussion is concluded, to delete would be putting the cart before the horse. When / if WP:NCRIC changes, then this deletion discussion could be revisited if the article no longer meets the revised WP:NCRIC. Paora (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for domestic cricketers and by consensus is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met. The only sources we have are databases and passing incidental mentions in routine cricket reports. None of this establishes notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Geschichte. Fails WP:GNG as it lacks quality sourcing to build a biography. These one-line articles make no sense to a typical visitor and wastes both parties' precious time (article creator and reader). Störm (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- no indication of meeting WP:GNG, which is what is required. No SNG can act as an exemption from it. Reyk _YO! 10:07, 26 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 redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Clear consensus not to have a standalone. ATD close. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Gale[edit]

Alexander Gale (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 have the necessary notability for a stand-alone article. While he meets the basic requirements of WP:NCRIC, that guideline is disputed at the moment just because there are too many people who meet it without having significant sources about them, only databases and routine match reports.

I had redirected this page to List of Otago representative cricketers, a solution I still support: when the redirect was undone, two passing mentions in newspapers were added (a name in a long list of names), and the online cenotaph, descibed as "the database will contain a record for every person who has served for our country on active service."[8], and which contains all kinds of information, including that provided by the families. Basically, an online memorial without indications of notability for the people recorded. Actual sources about his cricketing career are missing, and his military career wasn't particularly distinctive either. Fram (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NCRIC. The guideline is being disputed by Fram, so take that for what it's worth. Article was redirected, then expanded. At worst, restore the redirect. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC on NCRIC. I'm hardly the only one disputing it, general agreement is for either scrapping it or rewriting it to make it a lot tighter. Fram (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. 2020 marked the year that specialist projects could no longer make inclusions based on guidelines contrary to Wikipedia's general guidelines. The folks in WikiProject Football have taken this on board, and started deleting articles—by the numbers—on players with only 1 to 5 pro-tier games. Rugby has been cleaned up recently, and now the turn has come to cricket. Including players who are written about only in a couple of match reports, trivial or non-independent news is no longer feasible in Wikipedia, though it should be discussed on a case-by-case basis (although redirecting is often okay), and in this case there is no sensible reason for keeping. Geschichte (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these specialized inclusions have not followed anything approaching GNG and have lead to a lot of under sourced, unneeded junk articles in Wikipedia. It is time to cut back on these and go to a place where all articles meet GNG, which this one does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This FAILS WP:NCRIC because SPORTCRIT on the same page says "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." It also says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." Author needs to stop creating zero-notability perma-substub "articles", whether they've played just the bare one match or not. Reywas92^Talk 18:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable topic, and I would also like to add that I agree with User:Johnpacklambert 100% where we are seeing a large amount of awful articles being kept due to essays relating to notability instead of GNG. Thanks, Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 23:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that the article was expanded somewhat since the four !votes were added. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. The only sources we have are databases, match scorecards, routine local cricket reports, service listings, family announcements and electoral rolls. None of this establishes notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has been expanded with multiple sources in the last 24 hours. Gale played in a top-level competition with first-class status and so must be presumed notable per the SNG. Notability is confirmed by means of the additional sources cited. He should be included in the Otago list anyway. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the added sources indicate any notability though, they are passing mentions or one extremely local source. Fram (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. OK for a family-history, but we need much more than that. Nigej (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect with any relevant information merged to List of Otago representative cricketers. I appreciate that there are some sources, and if there was a paragraph or two in a book about Otago cricketers which dealt with him in just a little bit of detail, I think I'd be happy that I could keep the article. Maybe - this is the sort of thing that needs some sort of general consensus arrived at. Redirect has been established as a reasonable compromise over a period of time and articles like this where there is clearly some notability but not enough evidence of clear sourcing to maintain a stand alone article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as subject of article meets WP:NCRIC, having played a first-class match in New Zealand. I note that WP:NCRIC is currently under discussion, but until such time as that discussion is concluded, to delete would be putting the cart before the horse. When / if WP:NCRIC changes, then this deletion discussion could be revisited if the article no longer meets the revised WP:NCRIC. Paora (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paora: The other way to look at this is whether NCRIC is working as NSPORTS intends, does this subject meet GNG? If NCRIC is found to too be loose, there is no reason hold off on analyzing this cricketer now instead of dragging it back up in a couple months. Doing these kind of source evaluations now are useful as evidence for proving or disproving currently utilized SNGs as appropriate guidelines. Yosemiter (talk) 18:25, 26 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.