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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John J. McGrath (entrepreneur) (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 CEO/Founder. Seems to be failing WP:GNG to begin with. The two solid sources are Entrepreneur and Huffington - but both are basically authored/contributed articles, so barely independent. Most of the coverage is about the company he has founded and not him. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not one of the cited sources is about him. This is a vanity page about a dude with a job. FalconK (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Lorenzo (restaurant) (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 notable and unsourced PoliceSheep99 (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The restaurant shows to have good amount references including this one. The article may need rework. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 21:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the Telegraph article that Mamushir lists, as well as this piece in the London Evening Standard, this obit for the founder in the Times; paywalled, but I assume it covers the restaurant too. There's also this review in the Guardian. For what it's worth – not much – he was also covered in the express. Blablubbs|talk 00:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added more info and new sources suggested by Blablubbs. Based on the sources, it seems to be one of the most popular restaurants in London. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:44, 31 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. BTW - being created by a blocked user isn't a rationale for deletion. Missvain (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin Protocol (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:NCORP. References are routine sources about funding and aspirations. The creator Isingness was blocked for advertising. Coin (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The subject seems notable. There are supposedly a number of references. Created by blocked user can not be sole reason of deletion. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 21:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands - apart from being promotional spam from a banned user, I don't see that it meets WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not significant - I can't determine what significant things they've done in the blockchain space. The website reads more like a glorified LinkedIn page for the team's skills, than a resource on the 'Origin Protocol'. Haxwell (talk) 16:06, 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) 01:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Brown (academic) (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 academic. I updated the article to his current roles and added two sources, both of which are brief mentions or quotes of Brown. Searching for significant coverage in independent reliable sources returns nothing. [1] and [2]. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find any good coverage online. I can't find evidence of a chairship or a significant research contribution that would make him meet WP:PROF. This organizational chart says that the deputy vice-chancellorship only has one unit under it: the manufacturing centre. Possibly (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:Prof. I could not find any citations to his scholarly work (I could be corrected). Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be just a regular academic administrator, does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Same as above. Seems like the page was made in 2008 and has slipped past editors until now. Jmill1806 (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPROF Spudlace (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As noted above the subject does not seem to pass WP:PROF or to meet any other notability requirement. Dunarc (talk) 22:02, 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. Fenix down (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Richard Williams (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 BlameRuiner (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable football coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 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 keep (nomination withdrawn). Geschichte (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Krovanh (2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnotable, should be merged into 2020 Pacific typhoon season ~ AC5230 talk 21:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. AC5230 talk 21:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I messed up. Someone close this please. ~ AC5230 talk 21:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink:. --Hurricane Tracker 495 23:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep listed sources suffice. Perhaps more sources will do. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Ugh,now we gotta run through the seven day process. Keep, because 8 deaths is a lot, and it is important for East Asian readers. --Hurricane Tracker 495 13:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would not be right to merge it, it has caused death and damage and it has affected the Philippines and according to the Weather Agency it can enter the Indian Ocean, then it is clear not to merge. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this at AFD if you want to merge it? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Yellow Evan: It was a mistake. @Hurricanehink and Cyclonebiskit: Please close. --Hurricane Tracker 495 20:02, 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. Missvain (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NORG with primary source only. Nothing of substance found on a search. Otr500 (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete They have a couple of mildly notable games, but notability is not inherited. There doesn't seem to be anything notable to say about the company itself. ApLundell (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Found in some sources in connection with their games, bht significant coverage of the company itself is lacking; notability is not inherited. IceWelder [✉] 15:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per ApLundell. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:16, 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 early consensus. Missvain (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Avignon incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While this drew a flurry of coverage for a few days after the event, coverage has petered out and it seems unlikely to have significant long term effects. Does not meet WP:NEVENT. It might warrant a mention at Les Identitaires, in which case this should be converted to a redirect, but as there does not appear to be any mention of it there and it's not clear to me that it would be DUE, my primary suggestion is for deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a single event, it could easily be included in another article which would be more appropriate. ~RAM (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We need more coverage with continued discussions to be considered something as notable topic when it is WP:SINGLEEVENT ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 21:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- NOTNEWS. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, Per nom.WP:SINGLEEVENT, Alex-h (talk) 12:07, 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 Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator Sam Walton (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blåhøe (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 page is a duplicate of the article Blåhøe. Since it contains nothing that needs merging, I suggest it be deleted. Anfornum (talk) 20:31, 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. Seems sufficient to pass GNG. If people want to discuss things like mergers and redirects, please do so on appropriate talk pages. Missvain (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

While the subject appears to be the publisher of some solid investigative journalism, I can't find much coverage at all about MedPage Today. Provided sources are limited to mere mentions, quotes of coverage (largely in the context of a joint investigation into opioid abuse conducted with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel), and non-independent coverage. Online I was only able to find more of the same. Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP, and thus the redirect to Everyday Health should be restored. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Everyday Health: Same reasoning as the nominator. Could have just been done per WP:BEBOLD ~RAM (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the amount of edit warring over article recreation in the article's history, I figured that AfD was more appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ram1055 Can you please explain and provide your justification rather than saying "Same reasoning as the nominator. Could have just been done per WP:BEBOLD". MentroPat (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should mean you don't have any explanation User:Ram1055 MentroPat (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• MentroPat, my reasoning is very clear. The article could have just been redirected per WP:BEBOLD. It seems as though you have an obviously close connection to this article, and should probably review those guidelines. ~RAM (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for absolutely accepting by merely repeating your words that you don't have any Explanation. I don't know my having any connection with MedPage Today but since you know what I don't I ask you to illuminate me with your knowledge. You should read this report by US senate where they stated many corporate are involved in unethical practices for example bribing and all to suppress the truth and that 'obviously' implicate someone for having inverted conflict of interest with this article when they desperately try to delete an important article even when lacking any explanation to why they want so. Plus please spend some time to read what one of a medical professionals who are saviors in these notorious days of pandemic has said below. -MentroPat (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Everyday Health- not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:onel5969 Can you please explain and provide your justification rather than vaguely saying "not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG" because there tons of references available over the internet and similar within Wikipedia itself MentroPat (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "Rosguill" possibly the problem faced by you is that if you search "Wall Street Journal" in Google News, there will be hardly any secondary sources visible until you dig real deep. Same is happening with Medpage Today. So should that suggest the page of wall street journal should be deleted for not apparently fetching enough secondary sources per your argument? It is our Wikipedia that itself has countless reference to "MedPage Today" - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search="MedPage+Today"&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1 and a number of them are neither just mere references nor about just about any opioid investigations (which triggered Senate Investigation, I feel puzzled when Senate seals something, how that becomes not independent and primary sources and per my little understanding when Senate vetted someone's work it must be very recognizable. My opinion is there must be a page in Wikipedia about the 'Opioid Epidemic' as well which is a coinage of Senate and it must be undoubtedly significant and pertinent to every citizen of USA) but about like Veganism, Peanut butter test. Rosguil said they didn't find much independent sources but what I see in exact contrary there are very few primary sources in the article. Also I don't understand that how in addition to the already mentioned over 40 references in the article when we have references like as follows made others think it doesn't pass the rules! (REALLY? ARE YOU KIDDNG?) :

(please remove the quotes in case you can't find anything)

1. http://www.michaelbfriedman.com/mbf/images/Suicide_Prevention_for_MPT__PF.pdf

2. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Life_Disrupted/4hCiAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

3. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Malignant/lKPeDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

4. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/You_Can_t_Afford_to_Get_Sick/WKd0wOdnaBgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PT202&printsec=frontcover

5. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Guns_in_American_Society_An_Encyclopedia/QeGJH48PT0kC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA26&printsec=frontcover

6. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Eat_Move_Sleep/cU08AQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA241&printsec=frontcover

7. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Clinical_Trials_with_Missing_Data/fx7gAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA39&printsec=frontcover

8. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Primary_Care_of_the_Child_With_a_Chronic/qdkVnL3qUNsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA638&printsec=frontcover

9. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Healthcare_Valuation_The_four_pillars_of/NIdVBwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA497&printsec=frontcover

10. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Last_and_Greatest_Battle/eGSzBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA325&printsec=frontcover

11. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Handbook_of_Test_Security/xkIqAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PT31&printsec=frontcover

12. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/High_Stakes/ju59iMfOzsAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA204&printsec=frontcover

13. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/My_Life_with_Temporomandibular_Tmj/2r5PAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA65&printsec=frontcover

14. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_United_State/LWBQAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA160&printsec=frontcover

15. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/HBS_Alumni_Bulletin/VARbAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

16. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Facts_of_Life_and_More/-zBHAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

17. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Do_No_Harm/eSgeAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

18. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Taser_Electronic_Control_Devices_and_Sud/dAogAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

19. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Journal_of_Health_Care_Law_Policy/OZVLAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

20. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Symposium/4u1CAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

21. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Law_of_Bioethics/7AsrAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

22. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Food_Protection_Trends/-EcsAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

23. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Oath_Betrayed/3OnaAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover

In any case I would like to thank Rosguill for forcing me to learn rules about deletion discussion by nominating this and compelling me to work further on the article. I hope this will lead us to see a very informative article which MUST have its place in Wikipedia MentroPat (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on 4 of the above links at random, and each one of them appears to cite Medpage at most 3 times ([3], [4], [5], [6]). I found 0 independent coverage. From what I've seen of the source so far, MedPage seems like to be a reliable source on WP:USEBYOTHERS grounds, but we don't have the kind of significant coverage needed to write an article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what prohibited you from checking the first link. However I have added that in the article with the new sections. You may refer to the new additions. You are repeatedly saying you are unable to find independent sources. I want to ask why you think these references - [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] are not independent? The rule you cited about independent sources says - Is this source self-published or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources.) Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject? Is this source primary or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. The book links checked by you are published from John Hopkins University, Willey, Penguine these are of course independent sources. MentroPat (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Everyday Health- Interesting subject having potential to become a self sufficient article, but we need multiple significant coverage about the subject for that.
• Comment - Per WP:HEY the article may pass GNG, thus withdrawing my vote. MentroPat, its understandable your frustration when your article is nominated for AfD. Please be nice with other editors. They are tirelessly working to keep Wikipedia a better place. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you able to see there are too many links with significant coverage? example - [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] MentroPat (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: I would've voted to redirect it to its parent company. But, per WP:HEY, it seems that the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a medical professional I encounter MedPage Today frequently enough that this seems uncontroversial - articles in reliable sources like NY Times cite it as a source of information and cite experts' affiliation with the entity, etc. I have little doubt more RS can be found & cited. — soupvector (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per soupvector's references - delete the rest of my rant about this, suffice to say "3rd nomination" is not something I like to see. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Mutero (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 genuine evidence of notability. Note that Mutero himself has edited this article before. His claim to notability is his alleged 8 appearances for Glyfada, which have been on this article for seven years without any proof. Playmakerstats has no record of any appearances. I then checked Football Database, which has no record of Mutero at all, but does feature Glyfada players that supposedly should have played alongside him such as Nikoltsis and Efstathiou. Similarly, Soccerway accurately documented the players of Glyfada during the time that Mutero supposedly played eight games for them, see here, here and here and, once again, he does not have a profile on Soccerway. If he made eight appearances in the second tier of Greece then this will have been documented somewhere. It's possible that the 8 games were for the reserve team of Glyfada, which would mean that he does not actually pass WP:NFOOTBALL.

He fails WP:GNG by quite a long way above all else.

I found next to no Greek coverage. There is this, which is just a transfer announcement. Spiderone 20:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 22:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Players from Semi Professional Leagues need very strict WP:GNG to be satisfied which we do not see here. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 21:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,No sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 12:14, 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. Reminder: Being created by a blocked or banned user isn't a rationale for deletion. But, I trust Ghost Destroyer's assessment. Missvain (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World War Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Just another non-notable album GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another non-notable compilation album by Soul Crusher. Sources are crappy, google search didn't return much better sources (also, the name makes searching difficult). I wonder how many of Soul Crusher's trash is left, though I have a slight suspicion that this is just the beginning and many of these still lurk in the shadows. He is gone (he is indeffed), but we are still suffering from all of his non-notable articles. But anyways, this is not notable. Isn't there anything that would make these articles gone faster? I mean, if there are still lots of these unnotable stuff, nominating each of them one by one is tedious. We need something to rid of this stuff quickly. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The user who created the page was blocked with revoked TPA and the article has been tagged for notability.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 09:57, 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. Missvain (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thugs 'n' Kisses (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 album. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-notable industrial compilation album article by Soul Crusher. Though it's a bit older, as it was created in 2016 (although it had an Afd back in 2010, so this is actually the second nomination, as it was deleted in 2010). Sourced to the same junk featured in all of Soul Crusher's articles, including a blank Allmusic page (track listing + user reviews), blogs, discogs and the album booklet. Google search did not return any RS. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Barely found anything about the compilation album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chompy Ace 12:51, 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 as disambiguation page. Closing per consensus among all participants, after renaming and cleaning up the article. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Littel (surname) (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 list. It appears to be a list of people with the surname "Littel", but only lists two non-notable people without their own articles from the 16th and 19th centuries - can't find anyone else (with articles) with that exact surname. Only source given is someone's personal website about their family. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:¹ articles - this current article may be the "Littel" article listed there. Seagull123 Φ 19:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 19:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 19:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 19:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did find Emlen T. Littel for what it's worth, but no other articles with that surname. Chris857 (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Littel. We can add Emlen T. Littel and make it a disambiguation page between the person and the house. More articles will follow at another time. Should also remove the entire paragraph with Dutch stuff. gidonb (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I believe that the above is a rare trivial outcome and that the interest of the WP user to receive a good article without WP:OR and trivia takes priority. Hence, I made the above changes. If someone disagrees these can be rolled back. The added value is that participants can see where I wanted to take this. In any case, the closing editor and the disambiguation reviewer will take another look. gidonb (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging all others in this discussion: Seagull123 and Chris857. gidonb (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also those who discussed on the talk page: Cullen328 and Mac_Henni. gidonb (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on how the page is now, I would be fine with ending the AFD (is this a case of WP:HEY?) Chris857 (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris857, thank you! If you have added the close buttons, you can close yourself. Otherwise, you may want to ask for (speedy) keep based on the progress of the article. gidonb (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: I agree with you and Chris857, based on the current page, it seems fine to keep it, in my opinion. As I'm the nominator here, I'm not sure how this works, does WP:WDAFD apply here? Seagull123 Φ 23:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seagull123:. I have !voted so technically I shouldn't close. @Chris857: hasn't !voted, only commented, so he'd be the best man for the job. Otherwise I'll be bold again and go ahead anyway! gidonb (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, going ahead anyway per consensus among participants. gidonb (talk) 01:08, 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. Missvain (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Co-operative Builders of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Despite including a plural in the name, the "Co-operative Builders of Canada", was not a party, it was the ballot designation used by a single candidate in a single election— and one who won a mere 0.7% of the vote. There is no significant nor lasting coverage of the man nor his so-called party, nor even anything to say about his run: all the page can muster is that he was a plumber. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Essentially a biography of an unsuccessful and therefore non-notable independent candidate for political office, made over as a "political party" instead of a biography. But even our inclusion standards for political parties don't guarantee an article to every self-conferred ballot designation that one non-notable political candidate invented for himself, and still require reliable source coverage about the political party and evidence that it was a registered political party. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 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. Missvain (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parti ouvrier canadien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The "Parti ouvrier canadien" was not a party, it was the ballot designation of a single candidate in a single election— and one who won a paltry 0.8% of the vote. There is no significant nor lasting coverage of the man nor his "party", nor even anything to say about his run: all the page can muster is that he was a technician. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Essentially a biography of an unsuccessful and therefore non-notable independent candidate for political office, made over as a "political party" instead of a biography. But even our inclusion standards for political parties don't guarantee an article to every self-conferred ballot designation that one non-notable political candidate invented for himself, and still require reliable source coverage about the political party and evidence that it was a registered political party. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

"Canadian Democrat" was not a party, it was the ballot designation of a single candidate in a single election— and one who won a paltry 1.32% of the vote. There is no significant nor lasting coverage of the man nor his "party", nor even anything to say about his run: all the page can muster is that he was a law student. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is no reason to have an article on a designation of one person. The person might be notable (if they were trounced that badly, not for this, but maybe something else) but this designation has no notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essentially a biography of an unsuccessful and therefore non-notable independent candidate for political office, made over as a "political party" instead of a biography. But even our inclusion standards for political parties don't guarantee an article to every self-conferred ballot designation that one non-notable political candidate invented for himself, and still require reliable source coverage about the political party and evidence that it was a registered political party. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is something that should've been a WP:PROD. Chess (talk) (please use ((ping|Chess)) on reply) 09:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.Taking part in an election does not make anybody notable. Alex-h (talk) 14:00, 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 redirect to Wrightbus. (As stated below didn't even think of the manufacturer or redirecting there, Happy with that so speedy closing.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Nimbus (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 bus, Unfortunately there's no evidence of notability, There may be more offline however that's a big may be!,

The bus is basically a Plaxton Beaver just with slightly different side windows and a different styled destination window, Could be merged although no idea where?, Fails GNG. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wrightbus, the manufacturer, where it is mentioned in the list of former products. Very obvious redirect target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger Don't you think if I had thought of that that I would've done that ?, Redirecting there just never came in my head for whatever reason, That being said I'm happy with redirecting. –Davey2010^Talk 22:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Johnson (music producer) (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 notability. The references do not establish notability and I am also concerned about the history of this article. It was tagged as WP:A7 by User:S0091 and was continually removed by the creator inappropriately. User:TheMultimediaHub then stepped in to remove it as more or less their first Wikipedia edit.

I'm now taking this to AfD as it's quite clear that there is still a notability issue here and despite vehement protestation from two users there is still no evidence of notability. There is this in a reputable source but it's written by Johnson so can't be used. Spiderone 19:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - also see AfC history at Draft:Corey Johnson (music producer) Spiderone 19:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://oaccessjamaica.com/2016/11/23/meet-cory-johnson-one-of-the-producers-of-drakes-one-dance-hit-song/	?	Not a major or reliable publication. Blog.	Just an interview. Notability is based on what other people say about you not what you say about yourself.	✘ No
https://www.prsformusic.com/m-magazine/features/interview-corey-johnson/	Has an interest in promoting Johnson		As above	✘ No
https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/14534919.new-cross-music-entrepreneur-corey-johnson-offers-safe-space-away-from-gang-culture-in-south-east-london/			Mostly an interview	✘ No
https://djmag.com/longreads/inside-uk-drill-factory-london-studio-heart-scene				✔ Yes
https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/15/i-lost-knee-cap-to-knife-crime-now-i-save-young-people-from-same-fate-12056560/	Written by Johnson		Can't contribute towards GNG in any way as written by subject	✘ No
https://grmdaily.com/corey-johnson-beam-interview/	Has an interest in promoting Johnson	?	Interview	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

user: Spiderone seems to be on a one man mission to delete this page. All articles relating to this page are valid and from reputable sourcesDefendersent (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)— Defendersent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello Spiderone, I have a huge list of coverage for Mr Johnson and if you would like to work with me I can provide many references which you ca aid me to choose which ones should be used Marquis Newell (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)sock strike Spiderone 15:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please post them here and we'll have a look. Spiderone 14:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the page creator, Marquis Newell, has now been indefinitely blocked for promotion/advertising. Seagull123 Φ 17:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is a real person! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:6A:5AA7:B46C:F55E:2DF0:5927 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To add to the history of this article, the draft was declined twice then rejected on December 7th then again on December 8th. Later on December 8th, Marquis Newell created the article directly in mainspace which was CSD'd under the A7 criteria. They created it again. It was nominated for CSD deletion again. Marquis removed the CSD tag. On December 18th, I tried to do some cleanup, find sources, etc. but ultimately nominated for it CSD again. Marquis removed the tag, I warned them so they added it back but a new account, TheMultimediaHub, removed the tag again. S0091 (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the subject did receive songwriter's credit for One Dance that only meets the first criteria of WP:NMUSICIAN for a composer. DJ Mag is the only WP:RS that provides any significant coverage. All the other sources provided or via a Google search are either not independent (interviews, written by the subject, an advocate for musicians such as PRS/M Magazine) or a WP:BLOG, thus fails WP:GNG. S0091 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks independent coverage, also WP:BLP1E. Article history feels like a WP:UPE trying to game the system. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are not enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 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. Missvain (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable actress, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, No objections to redirecting to Ant McPartlin if desired, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - ah Byker Grove that takes me back! She's only had one semi-notable role and no other roles to speak of. Clearly fails NACTOR. I don't even think a redirect to Ant McPartlin is necessary as we're not a tabloid newspaper and only report relationships if they were significant. Spiderone 19:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article itself says she’s only done 2 roles. Not notable. Trillfendi (talk) 23:15, 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 redirect to Lego Indiana Jones. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Brick (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 refs and not notable film per WP:GNG. Chompy Ace 18:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 18:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 18:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 18:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable short film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lego Indiana Jones as an ATD. The film is mentioned there. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:27, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arago Jamal (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 and WP:NFOOTBALL from what I have found. Firstly, I can't find much in the way of coverage other than routine transfer announcements or announcements saying that he has been named in a squad. His only recorded appearances are in the Kosovo league and the third tier of Finland. He has no senior caps. I have checked World Football, Flashscore, Playmakerstats, GSA, Soccerway and Soccerbase. Spiderone 18:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet our insanely broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett Fitzsimmons (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 significant coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no real RS. His most significant credits were roles on Miami Vice, The Cape, and Ocean Ave., but they are all bit parts. Not much about his police career, either. Caro7200 (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete his roles do not come even close to rising to the level required by our actor notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 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. Missvain (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Creek, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Of the two entries, only Rock Creek, Butte County, California seems to be known as "Rock Creek, California". Having the Butte County place at the base title and then hatting to Rock Creek (California) for the streams dab page seems to be the best way to handle this from a navigational perspective. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 23 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, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2009-06 move to → Rock Creek, Butte County, California

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Five Points, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

All of the entries except for Five Points, Fresno County, California do not have articles, and all of the non-article ones fail WP:DABMENTION. (Two were recently deleted, the other three have never had articles). This doesn't serve a navigational aid, and the base title should be used for the one linked article. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Grace Mbanefo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The before yields primary sources from university routine news. For a college sports person we need at least college hall of fame or something extra ordinary which I guess is missing here per WP:NCOLLATH. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 18:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 18:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Kablammo (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Actually, college athletes just need to meet WP:GNG like anyone else, they don’t need to be in a Hall of Fame or anything of the sort. However, this person doesn’t meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster2, you may see the point 2 about the college hall of fame as one of the notability criteria for college athletes and coaches☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 21:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s one of the reasons that a college player’s notability can be presumed. If you’ll notice, point 3 says “Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.” That is essentially GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said WP:GNG is not appropriate as that would have been stupid to say so since every subject irrespective of their niche get governed by WP:GNG, that's why its 'general notability criteria'. My comment was to refer the hall of fame point about which your comment was: they don’t need to be in a Hall of Fame or anything of the sort ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 16:13, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbor Academy (computer training school) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As (arguably) a school this isn't eligible for A7. This online school does not meet GNG or NCORP. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If we do for any reason have an article on this outfit, we should handle it carefully, since the founder appears to engage in a fair bit of scummy SEO, cf. TheArborAcademy Reviews Costing Chad Kimball Sales? among a few other hits. Since it's not a non-profit, I think NCORP is the right standard to apply. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I spent a little time looking for RSes and found nothing. I did find this little gem by Chad Kimball, the properietor, showing his approach, which is something I think WP should avoid be used to promote. We really don't want this page. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like spam, fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem notable and looks kinda spam. Fails WP: NCORP — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3FAULTX8 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dark.fail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article makes no statement of notability. Dark.fail is the name of both an anonymous person and a mysterious organization, neither of which has any reliable and significant coverage. The person has been used very briefly as an anonymous source in a few news articles about larger topics, but did not say anything that contributes to his/her notability. The organization is only visible in minor social media chatter among hackers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands - no evidence in third-party RSes of notability - David Gerard (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to failing WP:GNG.TH1980 (talk) 21:52, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gal Sun Ho Gaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fail WP:NF, nothing is found inline. No references. No reviews. Kolma8 (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - couldn't find anything WP:BEFORE my !vote here. There is almost no information included after eight years since creation, so I doubt there is coverage I'm missing; it isn't so old as to pre-date internet coverage. -2pou (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as above, this isn't pre-internet so, if it were notable, there should be reviews and sources online. Probably would have been uncontested at WP:PROD. Spiderone 08:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete verifiability says all articles must have sources. This would apply to a 1912 film as well as 2012. However 2012 is recent enough that the total lack of sources is even more problematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that this article has existed since 2012 is a sad sign of how little our verifiability rules are actually enforced. Even sadded, this is only about half as old as the record oldest unsourced article I have seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 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. This well-informed discussion has commendably focused on arguments and counter-arguments based on Wikipedia guidelines and supporting evidence. At this point, there does appear to be a very narrow consensus trending in favor of keeping the article, due to the additional sources found during the course of this AfD.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General Wade Eiling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Jhenderson777 with no meaningful rationale. Let's try to stay civil, shall we? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination is unconvincing as it lacks evidence in support of its assertions. There are obvious alternative to deletion and, as that policy states "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.", that's what we should do. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is coverage for the CW iteration of the character, but I was unable to find coverage for the original comic book version. Darkknight2149 17:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Let this page stay. He is one of the notable Justice League villains even when he made use of a Shaggy Man's body. Plus, @Andrew Davidson: is right about his suggestion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:ATD is not some kind of magic anti-deletion argument. You have to show how this content can be better used to improve another. Merging pure plot summary generally tends to make articles worse, not better. This fails to meet the standards of WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The nomination is convincing as it displays enough evidence in support of its assertions. The article discussed appears to be nothing but a plot summary about an un-encyclopedic comic book character, whose coverage is limited to plot summaries only and nothing else. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No amount of editing can make a subject notable if the sources do not exist. The Keep votes do not mention any sources. Article does not have WP:SIGCOV "addressing the topic directly and in detail".   // Timothy :: talk  23:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Normally I would say redirect, but the character has an entry at both Captain Atom#Rogues gallery and List of Justice League enemies, so there is no clear target. Any relevant information can be added in either of those places, but I'm not seeing any sources that would pass GNG, unfortunately. Rhino131 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am working on these articles like List of DC Comics characters: G to potentially be places to merge to. I haven’t made it to that part of the alphabet yet though but it’s similar to List of DC Comics characters: A for prose of how it can work out. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have changed to Keep based on the sources provided below by Daranios, because they contain real-world analysis of the character. I consider the sources to contain enough analysis to pass the minimum standard of GNG (I have a feeling some might argue the sources are still just plot summaries, but I would strongly disagree). Also, if the article is merged this information would have to go with it, and as I said before there is no clear merge target. Therefore the best course is to keep the article. Rhino131 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A reception section has been added, which I consider enough to pass the minimum standards of GNG. I'm not interested in wading into the debate below, but I wanted to reaffirm my keep comment based on the new reception section. Rhino131 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is a lot of info out there on the General and he definitely meets the WP:GNG. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to link that "lot of info"? Or should we just take your word on it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. BlueD954 (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• But why do you think so? Daranios (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the Hollywood Reporter coverage. When comics characters appear in live-action movies and TV, they tend to get some coverage. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because secondary sources indeed do exist. I have added another one that gives characterization, voiding any "there is only plot summary" arguments. In addition, Der Dritte Weltkrieg als Reifeprüfung and Justice League Unlimited and the Politics of Globalization give character analysis and symbolic importance. These together should make for a reasonable Reception and Analysis paragraph. Together with the publication/on-screen history as mentioned by Toughpigs, this can give a significant non-plot portion, satisfying the WP:ALLPLOT requirement. And together with the plot-summary, supported secondary sources, we can have a decent-sized, non-stubby article, which is why we have WP:GNG in the first place. Daranios (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's indeed is an analytical sentence and not a plot summary. Unfortunately, it seems to be just a sentence, and GNG asks us for a non-trivial, in-depth coverage. I have concerns that a single sentence of analysis still is trivial and does not meet GNG, but I'd totally support merging this referenced sentence of proper analysis into some other article, before this gets deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I would prefer a merge to deletion. But as usual, on this point I am of the opinion that when a source has character analysis, then by its nature it's not trivial, no matter the length. And WP:GNG does not require sigificant coverage within any one source. It requires several sources, and it requires significant coverage overall, as the distinction the guideline makes is whether or not a non-stubby article can be created based on the sources. If the sources I have added alone would not fullfill that, it should be no problem to fullfill that together with the other two sources that have been found, each more detailed than the ones I have already added. So again I remain with my keep opinion. Daranios (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources provided by Daranios. The article for the subject topic will likely never become good article level and that would be a WP:CMOS issue, but the sources indicate that the subject topic passes GNG standards and is notable. Haleth (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am not sure there is enough to establish notability. But enough not to delete but possibly merge instead. Hence why I contested the overprodding. That is my rationale that Piotrus so desperately seeked that I failed to use according to him. So clarifying that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a lot of content (I don't really like comic-book stuff on Wikipedia in general) but the character definitely exists and there are sources that prove this. jp×g 06:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relevant policy is notability, not existence. Most of stuff that exists is not notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have a wonderful large set of articles on related characters in the same comic book universe. It would be a shame to lose individual puzzle pieces by selectively deleting small parts. I would also like to draw your attention to similar AfD nominations for Abel, Cain, and Plastique, where either no consensus was found, or the article was kept due to good improvements. I think some amount of work on this piece can also salvage a good addition to the encyclopedia.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect - The actual coverage that displays any kind of analysis or commentary that goes beyond plot or casting information is extremely trivial, and is certainly not enough to establish notability for the character. Redirecting it to List of DC Comics characters: G for now, preserving the history in case a merge becomes feasible after the work done on that list by Jhenderson, would also be completely acceptable to me, as well. It should just not be kept as an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you think that the treatment by e.g. Justice League Unlimited and the Politics of Globalization is "extremely trivial"? Daranios (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Because its several paragraphs simply summarizing the plots of a couple episodes he was in, and then a single, short paragraph of actual analysis, most of which is still just made up of quotes from the show. The rest of the section on militarism is not actually about him. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you see here what I see in there. I don't say it's epic in size or message, but I say it's commentary, and all in all we have surely more than half a paragraph. Daranios (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for acknowledging the lists. Should be motivation for me to be back on and maybe be more complete on them sometime.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 12:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since the beginning of the AfD, a Reception and analysis section based on the already suggested secondary sources has been created, which now amounts to more than "a single sentence of analysis", as Piotrus had critized at an earlier point. Please take this material into account for the delete/merge/keep decision. Daranios (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Daranios: Justice League Unlimited and the Politics of Globalization looks very good and discusses the character for at least two paragraphs if not more. One more quality source like this would met GNG requirement for multiple non-trivial coverage and I'd withdraw this nom then. Can we find it? If not, I'd support merging the reception into whatever list summarizes him. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Piotrus: I did not see any more so far. As length of sources is not an end in itself, and for the reasons already outlined, I think the other shorter treatments together are sufficient to fullfill the guidelines in place of one long one. As usual, we can agree to disagree on this point. I am curious how the decision will turn out in this case. Daranios (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Non-trivial sources are the only sources that matter. Overstating the importance of trivial sources helps nothing. It just makes an article look like a fluff piece with no substance. TTN (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • If secondary sources contain something like character analysis, they are not trivial, no matter the length. Daranios (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • If said "analysis" is but a single adjective, then, yes, it is absolutely trivial. If it's otherwise something that cannot be used to pass GNG, then it is trivial. Trivial does not inherently mean unworthy of inclusion if GNG is otherwise satisfied, but it does mean that it alone means nothing to passing GNG. Wikipedia is not all encompassing, so we don't need to bother with something that receives no actual attention. TTN (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • So we are back to the "collectively" or not. Do I understand correctly, that you would go through the reception section one by one, and then say: Each of these sources contains too little to count, each is then trivial by your defintion? And then suddenly a whole paragraph is "trivial". I do not follow that argumentation, because we have a paragraph of non-plot reception information (+ more in the others). And why do we have the requirements of WP:GNG: "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic". There is more than half a paragraph there, so why should that be of little value and deleted?

In another vein, if you consider the secondary sources present too little to support a stand-alone article, do you still want to delete it - rather than merge? Your deletion vote based on "pure plot summary" should not be merged still stands, but the state of the article has changed since then. Daranios (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources provided, only the one mentioned by Piotrus has any value. The rest could be trashed without losing anything worthwhile. Not all commentary is equal, and some little fluff sentence or sentence fragment is not commentary in my opinion. As for merging, I don't see any benefit in retaining an entire page just because someone added the a source in the last 1% of its existence. You have access to the source, so you can simply add it wherever you see fit. There's no inherent benefit to keeping the page history just for the sake of that, but a redirect is also a suitable enough outcome. TTN (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from what they give us contentwise, those other sources also help us in providing balance: Two affirm what the most extensive one says about the character, one gives a different characterization. I think not supporting a merge of content based on a secondary source that even you think has some value and bringing in timing (and let's not forget that secondary sources giving publication history have been in the article a long time) are not in keeping with WP:AtD and WP:NEXIST.

Be that as it may, I thank both you and Piotrus for giving your arguments about the newly found sources (which other deletion voters haven't). I am awating with some anticipation what the closer will make of all our arguments. Daranios (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based particularly on the newly added secondary source coverage. AGFing on the print sources and looking particularly at the IRSF article, there's certainly enough to pass the GNG. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:30, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article asserts that he has played one league game for Leganés but this is contradicted by trusted sources. According to Football Database, Playmaker Stats and Soccerway, he has played twice but in the Copa del Rey. These games were against CD Ebro and FC Andorra, neither of which play in a league listed at WP:FPL so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG as coverage consists entirely of routine transfer news and signing new contracts etc. Spiderone 16:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is time for us to scrap the ridiculous notability guidelines for footballers and start using something that requires more than one appearance at a minimum. With an actor we do not accept they are notable even for a significant role in a notable production, we require multiple such significant roles. The football guidelines is more like if we accepted every person who had a credited role in a notable film as notable for that. Significant and credited are not the same and we require multiple roles. The sports notability guideliens are crazy. Even the actor notability guidelines as interpreted tend to be too broad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Spiderone 22:56, 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. Missvain (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foxtrot (compilation) (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 album GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought this was one of Soul Crusher's creations, but this is older. It was created in 2006. Tagged for notability since 2013. The sourcing in the article is crappy - no independent, reliable sources are presented, and The Guardian piece is not about the album, it's an obituary. The album has a plwiki entry as well, and there is no sourcing whatsoever - at the "external links" section, the album cover is presented. During a Google search I couldn't find anything reliable (also, the bland name makes searching difficult). This is an unnotable album. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:NOTDISCOGS. Barely found anything about the compilation album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teacup Dogs Agility Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails GNG. An extensive search has found no sources that meet WP:SIGCOV, a few fleeting mentions can be found in some news articles and the like, such as this WSJ article, but nothing that “addresses the topic directly and in detail”. Cavalryman (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Support deleting I was also looking for sources on this organisation while editing another article, found nothing. --LoraxJr — Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Support delete as per nominator. William Harris (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not seeing any reason to pass WP:GNG nor any other measure. No basic sources provided... would change my position if good sources were presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no independent sources in the page, no sign of any in-depth coverage via Gbooks, Scholar or JSTOR, does not begin to satisfy WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: It's also a foundational copy-paste copyvio from its old website, so I've blanked it and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 December 30; if the article is to be kept it will need to be completely rewritten. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Good catch.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Searches did not turn up anything in-depth to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Person High School (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:NSCHOOL. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Creator seems to be adding lots of non-notable schools, mostly in draftspace - see Draft:Roxboro Community School, Draft:Bethel Hill Charter School. Pahunkat (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is clearly a non-notable high school with just WP:MILL news coverage about it. There's nothing that passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we used to assume any high school that currently existed was notable by default. We have since realized this is not the case, and now require sourcing that would pass at least a minimum understanding of GNG, which is clearly lacking in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adana-Mersin metropolitan area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no such metropolitan area in Turkey and this term has no unofficial, official, academic etc. usage. An example for WP:ORIGINAL. --[evolutionoftheuniverse] ^@enwiki 15:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. --[evolutionoftheuniverse] ^@enwiki 15:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. [evolutionoftheuniverse] ^@enwiki 15:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete The Turkish article has been nominated for deletion too. The first person to react has said the necessary things: there is almost no source that mentions the existence of this area and the ones that do are small publications (Haber7) and a book to learn Turkish. The Adana Province and the Mersin Province are two different areas that have no real meaning when merged together. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 14:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Pure original research. Keivan.f^Talk 23:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing to indicate this article is about a place that meets WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 31 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) 01:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Weaver (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:NPOLITICIAN, as she was not elected to office. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia 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, she would have to either (a) show that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway (which being a member of a local school board is not), 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 she 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) 16:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Outside of losing the election, no notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let it get Published I think that she has enough notability, even search in Google has her information. She deserves a Wikipedia article page for herself. She is a politician, well known and even has stood in elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Maverick (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standing in elections is not in and of itself what gets a politician into Wikipedia. Winning elections, and thereby serving in a notable political office, is. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails notability guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails notability guidelines. David notMD (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:12, 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. Fenix down (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Rhailouf (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 and WP:NFOOTBALL; has 22 appearances apparently but I can't find any source to back that up. Chabab have only just been promoted so it's likely that any games will have been 2nd tier, so not in a league at WP:FPL. I have checked football database, Besoccer and Kooora. Spiderone 14:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No appearances that would meet WP:NFOOTY listed on Soccerway either. --John B123 (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:19, 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) 15:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anass Nouader (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 spent some time fixing this article as it was a complete mess and then realised that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL anyway as his appearances were in the 2nd tier of Morocco and the 5th tier of France, neither of which are listed at WP:FPL. It doesn't look like he passes WP:GNG.

No appearances listed at Soccerway, GSA or Soccerpunter. I added footballdatabase.eu to the page but this only shows appearances for last season, when Chabab were playing in a semi-pro league (Botola 2). Spiderone 14:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails [[WP:GNG)) and ((WP:NFOOTY]] --John B123 (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is time we stopped letting one-line articles with no substance sit forever when they do not meet even minimum inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 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. Missvain (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

India A Team Triangular Series in 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Is this really notable? There's lots of discussion going on about WP:CRIN at the moment but I think we can all agree that this article wouldn't pass WP:CRIN as CRIN currently is. Furthermore the article also fails WP:GNG. Could be wrong though so all views welcome. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another A-Team/U19 tour article created by the same user. All of these tours are below the top level for international matches, with many of them already being deleted (one, two). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep the articles in CricketCountry and the Hindu suggest to me that there is some overall coverage of this tournament, so I can see a case for just about keeping it. There is no real guidance on this sort of article and whether it should or should not be included as far as I'm aware, so the overview coverage is my guideline here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lugnut's rationale. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Spectrum Control (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 notable. There are no independent sources Jcarlosmartins (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, should be deleted. There are no independent sources, and the article is more like a product description from an IBM brochure than an encyclopedia article.PopePompus (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not familiar with this product as I was with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM Tivoli Storage Manager, that aside all the google book hits I found are primary, and did not find significant non primary mentions of the product elsewhere. Jeepday (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again (as the 2 other AfDs on IBM products nominated on this date) notable to be sure in its field, and a very possible search term for WP readers - this product should have an encyclopedia article here.--Concertmusic (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concertmusic You may or may not be correct about this. But your argument will hold more weight if you can find references that support it meeting WP:GNG, adding those references to the article and making a note here that you did so, will go a long way to supporting your position. Jeepday (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or redirect to an appropriate page as a second choice. The article cites no notability sources (reliable independent secondary sources with substantial coverage), and a BEFORE search revealed no such sources either. Although many Google Books results came up, all of the ones I could find are primary (published by IBM itself), which disqualifies them from being notability sources. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 31 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.