< December 08	December 10 >

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

The result was speedy delete. Missvain (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Keenan (Covid 19 Vaccine)[edit]

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

The subject is only known for being the first person to receive the vaccine. Otherwise, her life was unremarkable. A clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. A redirect could be left to e.g. COVID-19 vaccine. It is unlikely she will become separately notable in the future. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep subject has been covered in number of news and other media independently. If Dolly (sheep) can have a wiki page, so can the subject owing the same logic. Thanks.Tabletop123 (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not convinced by the Dolly (sheep) parallel. There are lots of details available about Dolly's scientific legacy and the extraordinary circumstances of her birth, about how a team of researchers planned the cloning. A better example for your case would be Rosa Parks: while being notable for mainly one event, lots has been written about her since. Yes there is coverage of Margaret Keenan. But it will all give you the same info: her age, her former job and her getting the jab. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've just seen that there is already an article (Margaret Keenan) which went the way I proposed. So this one might be an A10 speedy delete. Though the page in question is a redirect and not a page now. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete per above. Sincerely, TheCartoonEditor. talk to me? see what i've done 23:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10, as per Modussiccandi's comment above - recently created article that duplicates an existing page. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BNT162b2#Emergency use authorization, exactly the same as Margaret Keenan. This title is a highly plausible search term, as she is the first recipient of this particular COVID-19 vaccine, and indeed is probably far more recognized than the actual article title.
Redirect is supported by the text at both WP:CSD#A10 and WP:ATD-R. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable other than being first in line. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete classic WP:BLP1E. Can be mentioned as a one-line in another article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - I don't mind which. Classic case of a living person notable only for one event. Already mentioned at BNT162b2, which is enough. Spiderone 09:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A10. Would've originally said redirect but it seems this article already exists. ser! (let's discuss it). 16:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subject has numerous articles dedicated to her and the whole world knows her, is that enough for notability? Thanks.Tabletop123 (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not even a question, she is not. This is a wrong forum RfD. The topic is covered at BNT162b2#Emergency use authorization. This is a plausible search term. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 11 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) 22:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Antunes Coimbra Junior[edit]

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

Despite passing WP:NFOOTY with two appearances in the Japanese 2nd League, I struggled to find any sources that relate to the son of Zico with the only reference being a brief mention and his J-League and Transfermarkt page which wouldn't be enough to pass WP:GNG which trumps over WP:NFOOTY. HawkAussie (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is consensus at AFD that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with 1/2 appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. Giant Snowman 18:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Zico (footballer)#Personal life - GNG clearly failed but he is mentioned in Zico's article Spiderone 19:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer (from a famous footballing family) who only made two appearances in the Japanese second level in his entire career. There appears to be a comprehensive WP:GNG failure since I can only find online Portuguese-language coverage like this (newspaper article about his dream to play professionally and in a World Cup) and this (single paragraph summary of his career). Jogurney (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Setreis (talk) 06:18, 13 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) 22:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romuald Andela Midoukna[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. He has no profile on Soccerbase or Soccerway. His World Football and Eurosport have no valuable info. While looking to see if he could pass WP:GNG, I kept stumbling upon the BBC article already linked in this article. On ProQuest, the only two hits are this and this, which prove that he exists but I'm not convinced that it's enough for WP:GNG. Spiderone 21:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not shown to meet football guidelines even though it's claimed. Geschichte (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a really strange one - there's lots of claims and a possibly mis-spelled name, but searches under both names don't lead to anything verifiable other than he trialled a couple places. There may be more out there, especially if he did play for CSKA Sofia, but it's not online. SportingFlyer T·C 00:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFOOTBALL. Setreis (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Peter303x (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters. Missvain (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Packer[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG, and is almost entirely WP:PLOTONLY. The second paragraph of the lead isn't even about the character, and the article tags have been up since 2012. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant character in a very popular TV series. Should be reworked to meet WP:PLOTONLY criteria. ~RAM (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ram1055: Could you emphasize how he's "significant"? Being popular doesn't mean his character warrants an article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Some Dude From North Carolina: Considering how popularity is a basis for notability, I think that does warrant an article. You wouldn't give an article to a character that isn't popular, would you? In furtherance of my point, I think that every other character has an article certainly means something. There is also a fair amount of articles on the characters sexism/racism. It is difficult to apply standards, as there isn't much (that I could find) on policy for fictional character's notability. ~RAM (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ram1055: But at the moment it's just WP:FANCRUFT. There's no actual information but plot. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Some Dude From North Carolina: Again, that's why I suggested the article should certainly be re-worked, but not deleted altogether. ~RAM (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Ram1055: But even if reworked, the article will essentially remain a redundant fork on Wikipedia. There's no information to add, only plot, and that won't make this article notable. Plus, if you want to keep the "content" from the article, just vote "merge to List of The Office (American TV series) characters" since once again, it can't be improved. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Some Dude From North Carolina: I feel that consistency is also important here. If the precedent on all of the other characters from this series have their own article, then it would be appropriate to keep this one. ~RAM (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Ram1055: Just because other characters have articles, doesn't mean this one should. See WP:OTHER. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Some Dude From North Carolina, I am aware of WP:OTHER, I am drawing the parallel here. You've failed to prove that the article isn't notable. In my searching, I found significant coverage on this characters sexist and racist comments that didn't age well within the plot of the show - that is recent and significant. I also believe that if you have 100 things grouped together all notable absent compelling reason not, the 101st shouldn't be non-notable because it has a bad article written. As I've stated, it should be kept, but reworked as the most compelling argument here for deletion is that you don't like the way it is written. ~RAM (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Ram1055: My argument is that this article just fails straight-up fails WP:GNG. Does this character need an article? No, he does not. I'm saying that his article should be deleted, with some information being moved to List of The Office (American TV series) characters since all of his information can be found in episode-articles already. All but one source in the article is a non-primary source. Does Todd Packer need an article? No, he does not. It's just WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Some Dude From North Carolina, again, significant reworking to add additional sources is needed. I do not believe that this fails WP:GNG. There is an entire category for The Office Characters. The notoriety is there. The sourcing is what is lacking. I think that the argument you are making also fails WP:TEMP. The notability was there back when the series was airing. ~RAM (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (for now) - From Some Dude From North Carolina's own arguments above (his exact words: "But at the moment it's just WP:FANCRUFT. There's no actual information but plot." Plus, a bizarre claim that this is a content fork), it's evident that this is yet another "The quality of the article is bad, so it must fail GNG" nomination. Notability requires only the existence of reliable published sources. The quality of the current revision of the article is irrelevant. It's also impossible to "make" something notable, because notability doesn't change based on the state of the article.

I don't find the "It's popular, so it must be notable" or "But what about the other articles like this?" arguments compelling either. Dark knight 2149 10:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reception section or like, no sources found that suggest it might be possible to write one. Fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters#Todd Packer; there are quite a few cruft-filled character articles for The Office, but this one is by far the worst. As Piotrus notes, there's no Reception, just plot summaries. Listicles like [1] don't justify a stand-alone article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no multiple indepdent, 3rd party, secondary reliable sources that discuss Packer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article needs multiple independent third party sources about the character to discuss it in an out-of-universe context. Without that, it's impossible to write an article that meets WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. I wouldn't object to a redirect if there's a suitable and useful target. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters as it is a clear redirect target, as opposed to deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters, as ATD. Clearly not enough real-world notability to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:37, 16 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 01:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scoil Chaitriona[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 19:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator arguments. Peter303x (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no claims of notability in the article, Google news found several hits, but the ones I saw were local and did not support notability. Jeepday (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:35, 16 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. Redirect can be created if desired Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toolamba Primary School[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. Sources in the article are not SIGCOV. BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV; tragically there was a fire in one of the school buildings, but WP is not a news service. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 19:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this primary school has not received enough significant coverage in reliable sources Spiderone 20:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toolamba. Doctorhawkes (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Doctorhawkes - an appropriate alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable primary school. That is virtually all primary schools, extremely few are notable. None I have attended or taught at were and that is about 25 if you count places I subbed. I stand by the view absolutely none of them were notable, including one it was claimed was the oldest operating elementary school in Detroit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above. I have already merged what I could. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Spudlace (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable primary school, fails WP:GNG.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Gelbakhiani[edit]

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

Was given a PROD a few years back fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG as she hasn't represented her country at senior level, or received significant coverage in reliable sources. This got removed but the PROD is still correct, even now. I have searched for coverage in Russian but am only getting passing mentions and the usual database website entries. [2] [3] [4] Spiderone 18:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Peter303x (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Deoghar#Economy. Missvain (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Deoghar[edit]

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

Insufficient info for a stand alone article. What is reliably referenced is already in the economy section of Deoghar. noq (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect. Should be redirected into Deoghar, there is sufficient information on the economy on the aforementioned page. ~RAM (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no reason for this to have its own article. If there is any net additional content over and above what exists in the main Deoghar article, this can be merged there. Assuming it's worth salvaging, that is — just because there's a plastic recycling plant in the locality, doesn't mean it needs to be included in an encyclopaedia. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with others that this does not deserve its own article. I think the contents can be merged and redirected to Deoghar#Economy as it adds some value to the target article. The author @Weareme234: should be noticed and warned not to create such articles, and at least 4 of them are on AfD right now. --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Deoghar#Economy. This is an unneeded content fork of the main article, Any relevant material can be covered there. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 14 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 01:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene, California[edit]

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

Mr. Eugene's farm, from what topos and aerials show. No evidence of a town. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with all the other similar articles that have come down, this fails WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:GEOLAND.TH1980 (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 13:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was never a settlement Spiderone 11:00, 15 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claus, California[edit]

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

And another siding that apparently has always existed to service an ag supply business, as it still does. Not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with all of these articles by the same editor, WP:GEOLAND is failed. Worth noting that the additional California placenames reference cited here does not actually say what Claus is - it says it was established by the railway, so a natural interpretation would be that it is a railway siding/station. The other reference is GNIS, which has known problems with accuracy. FOARP (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:46, 16 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Daltonganj (Medininagar)[edit]

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

While populated places are presumed notable, I don't think any and all aspects of populated places are. The salient contents (bear with me...) of this could in theory be merged into the main article on Medininagar, except that there isn't all that much to merge, once you weed out all the unsupported OR and fluff. The few sources that there are, aren't exactly RS, so this pretty much fails every aspect of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After removing some of the unsourced sections and those without any relevant sources. All that is left is one section that really should be removed as well. Absolutely nothing here worth saving. noq (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Daltonganj already has a section on the economy in the main article so this is a redundant fork Spiderone 18:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with others that this does not deserve its own article. I think the contents can be merged and redirected to Medininagar#Economy as it adds some value to the target article. The author @Weareme234: should be noticed and warned not to create such articles, at least 4 of them are on AfD right now. --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:35, 10 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claribel, California[edit]

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

Yet another rail spot, next to a building labelled as a winery in some topos, but now occupied by an ag supply business. Again, clearly not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A WP:GEOLAND fail, as with all the other unincorporated communities listed recently without any WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:44, 16 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora, Stanislaus County, California[edit]

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

From the topos this appears to have been a siding on a rail line in the middle of Modesto. It certainly wasn't a settlement or even a neighborhood. Mangoe (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with all of these articles by the same editor, WP:GEOLAND is failed. FOARP (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 06:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and most likely fails WP:GEOLAND as well Spiderone 15:36, 16 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adela, California[edit]

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

A siding which, along with the line it sat on, is long gone. The area has been overrun by the neighboring city, but topos and older aerials show nothing like a settlement there. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with all of these articles by the same editor, WP:GEOLAND is failed. FOARP (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:41, 16 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shuvo Roy[edit]

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

Was incorrectly formatted. The reason for deletion give was : Reads like someone's personal resume. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 16:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 16:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 16:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 16:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Scholar indicates 20 papers with more than 100 citations each (highest are 1044, 461, 454) which, at least in my observations has been seen as sufficient to satisfy the 1st criteria for notability in WP:PROF in these sorts of cases. There is also some secondary coverage of the subject's in places like Nature News [5] and The San Francisco Chronicle [6]. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 as above. This is somewhat ((like-resume)), but not to the point where deletion is an appropriate remedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, google scholar profile has an h-index of 65, passing PROF C1.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with that h-index, and citation count, passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 16 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, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yaa Pono[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is that he won a minor music award, referenced solely to the award's own self-published website rather than any evidence of media coverage about it -- but NMUSIC #8 requires major awards on the order of Grammys or Brits that get media coverage, not just any random music award that exists. And other than that, the only other sources here are his own self-published content on Deezer and a user-generated PR platform, not the reliable source coverage in real media independent of himself that it takes to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Justarandomamerican (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after more verification there are more sources out there on google , Samat lib (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep it meet WP:MUSICBIO poor article is not a reason for Deletion , the rapper has won vodafone Ghana music Award ; ^[1] base on our Notable Wikipedia , VODAFONE GHANA MUSIC AWARDS is the only Major Awards ^[2]^[3]^[4] that exist in GHANA ... there is NO orther , as long as VODAFONE GHANA MUSIC AWARDS , is NOTABLE and relevant ; he passes Requirement #8 at WP:NMUSICIAN wish says that the person could be notable if they won a major award. Samat lib (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. SMB9 9thx my edits! 09:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The improvements made to sourcing do enough for me to make this an interesting encyclopedia article on a rising African musician.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time is a charm. Please can we discuss the sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No fans, no plays, no social media coverage. Nothing on Soundcloud, Spotify and so. Completely obscure. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:MUSICBIO. And they're is no coverage, hence the terribe references. They are in a shocking state. scope_creep^Talk 20:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment base on our Notable Wikipedia , VODAFONE GHANA MUSIC AWARDS is the only Major Awards ^[5]^[6]^[7] that exist in GHANA ... there is NO orther , as long as VODAFONE GHANA MUSIC AWARDS , is NOTABLE and relevant ; he passes Requirement #8 at WP:NMUSICIAN wish says that the person could be notable if they won a major award.
Reply every independent country has is own Major music Awards - if this awards is not recognised , then what else when it comes to music Entertainment in GHANA , there is NO orther major Award . there ; Samat lib (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there must other coverage to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. It a BLP. He can be a really obscure person who won an award, but without coverage there is no articles, and there is no coverage. scope_creep^Talk 23:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one of the Wikipedia Notability guildlines or RULES has been meet , NOTABILITY FOUND :: NO MORE ARGUMENT , here is media coverege ^[8]^[9] Samat lib (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot make a person notable by referencing content to (a) other Wikipedia articles, (b) blogs, (c) the self-published websites of organizations directly affiliated with the claim, or (d) directory entries — which wipes out every single source you've tried to provide in this discussion. To make a person notable, you have to reference the content to real journalist-written articles published in real media, not primary sources or blogs. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment there are several MULTIPLE media independent coverege wish i just added on the article page, AGAIN the musician won major Awards in his homeland of GHANA ,that make him Notable and relevant ; he passes Requirement #8 at WP:NMUSICIAN wish says that the person could be notable if they won a major award , and he also has reference on billboard.com Samat lib (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some keep arguments show a clear lack of understanding of what major music awards are. This particular artist fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 16 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) 03:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown, Mono County, California[edit]

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

The coords drop one just on the outskirts of Bodie, and GNIS cites a map of the state park enclosing this well-preserved ghost town. Some sloppy map reading there. I don't think a redirect is a good idea considering the many prominent Chinatown neighborhoods it would trap in searching. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with every other one of these listings created by same author, fails WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and most likely fails WP:GEOLAND as well; I agree that a redirect would be inappropriate Spiderone 15:37, 16 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) 17:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhurgham Subhi[edit]

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

I agree with BlameRuiner's original tag that this is a (xwiki) hoax. The sources are all dubious and self published and contain the same badly photoshopped photo of this supposed footballer, the Karbalaa roster doesn't have him anywhere that I can find and neither does the other team he supposedly played for. Praxidicae (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've also bundled two others for the same reason. Praxidicae (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fake, deleted on arwiki --Alaa :)..! 14:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hussein Adan (I've added a source which supports the 4 caps for Iraq) but delete Subhi and Alykob as there is no record of any caps anywhere (I've checked Soccerway, World Football, National Football Teams and RSSSF). Spiderone 15:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone Thanks for that, I'll strike the nomination of Adan. Praxidicae (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alukob and Subhi. --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fail GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dhurgham Subhi -- I removed the speedy, and on second look found the original assessment of hoax seemed appropriate. Jeepday (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these are non-notable footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 15 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohini Bhairav[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; only source is a YouTube video, no coverage to be found. Promotional, almost certainly self-promotional: musical piece by Ghulam Abbas Khan, page created by User:Ghulamabbaskhan786. Lennart97 (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of why this particular raag is notable. In my search I found nothing to indicate that it is. I agree that this is probably self-promotional. Maybe there should be an article about Ghulam Abbas Khan if he is indeed eminent, and this could redirect to it. I've requested a refund of the draft biography. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer: This exists: Wikipedia:Ghulamabbaskhan786/sandbox. It used to be in the User space, but the user moved it to the Wikipedia space 'for people to know'. I don't think it's supposed to be there, but anyway, that's the biography of the musician. Lennart97 (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that it's also the first result when you Google 'Ghulam Abbas Khan', and with the 'Wikipedia:' in front of it, it could probably quite easily be mistaken for a legitimate Wikipedia article. So it should probably be moved back to userspace. Lennart97 (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

moved to User:Ghulamabbaskhan786/sandbox Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ser! (let's discuss it). 16:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Zhiyuan[edit]

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

~~Has never played in the top tier of Chinese football or for the national team, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. The coverage is run-of-the-mill, failing WP:GNG. Spiderone 14:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw - due to revision of status of Chinese leagues at WP:FPL, subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL Spiderone 20:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per N57 below, actually meets NFOOTBALL by some way. Giant Snowman 22:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep China League One and Two are fully pro leagues. This source discusses the history of League Two, stating it was semi-professional (半职业) from 1994 to 2003, professional (职业, which I think can be taken to mean fully-professional given the previous reference of semi-professionalism) from 2004 to 2010, amateur (业余) from 2011 to 2014 and professional again since 2014. I will update WP:FPL. Pinging GiantSnowman for reconsideration. Number 5 7 21:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number 57 above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:37, 14 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) 17:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Baghdad FC season[edit]

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

Not covered by WP:NSEASONS and fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about this season that makes it stand out enough to warrant its own article. There is no content worth merging into Amanat Baghdad SC either. Spiderone 14:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:57, 9 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) 08:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Sabri[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. External sources claim he played for NT against Tunisia in 2001 in Baghdad. I found no reports on that match and it isn't listed anywhere. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the names are similar enough for me to think that this is the same person, however, there are no recorded caps and I can't see any evidence of being able to pass GNG Spiderone 13:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Calzatti[edit]

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

We require everything in a biography of a living person to be verrified by reliable sources. This article lacks any reliable sources, using only IMDb which in no way is reliable nor does it have the selectivity that would indicate something it mentions is notable. The article has been tagged as lacking adequate sourcing for over a year. The guy is involved in making music videos, which is not the type of video production that often leads to notability. I am sure some music video creators are notable, but we need lots of substantial coverage of a person to show that, not just a directory style listing in IMDb. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the article only got a posted notaice on inadequate sourcing in 2019, it was created in 2008 with originally no sources. The creator only made two edits outside their edits on this page, one was to create a link from a page on a music video that name-chekced Calzatti's existence, and another was to add a mention of Calzatti on a page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it looks like he passed away recently. With that being said, notability requirements for a biographical article still apply. I am finding nothing in a WP:BEFORE search which included Google and newspaper records. Spiderone 14:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried using that source in the article, and Wikipedia would not let me place it there, so I think it is not a very reliable one. I don't doubt he is dead, but I doubt he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with such an allegedly long career as a cinematographer (he was never primarily a director as most readers would think) there's very little coverage. Technical and camera people behind the scenes are rarely notable. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abiotic (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:A7 / WP:BAND. The band is kind of cool, but i cant find a reason for them to be here yet. Plus the sources dont really back up the content and they're trash sources too (stuff like Spirit of Metal).

When you google "abiotic technical" or "abiotic band", anything that can possibly give you any relevance to this band, all that comes back is just profiles on sites like Metal Blade, their Metal Archives entry, or the occasional article by sites like Metal Injection, which isn't even relevant jouranilism/press it's just stuff like "band breaks up"/"member quits band". I can't find a reason for this to be here. Theyre no longer on a noteworthy label (Metal Blade is not a major label, i know the previous nom implies such but this band isn't even on the label's roster anymore), theyve never released a charting album and also they havent gotten barely any press for the last 8 years besides the occasional indipendant metal site. Plus it's been more than a year and still the sources that users argued that make the band notable in the previous nom such as a negative review on PopMatters from 2012 or a Houston Press article from 2012 have still never been yet added to the page for this apparently notable band. Second Skin (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Metal Blade is among the more important indie labels, meeting WP:BAND#4. Geschichte (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yet I just noted they’re not the label anymore, refuting this argument. Second Skin (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand please?Kolma8 (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current status of the Metal Blade label and the band's current connection to the label are utterly irrelevant. WP:DEGRADE Geschichte (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:BAND#5. Kolma8 (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSICBIO does not state that a subject is notable if it meets criteria listed, only that it might be There is not enough to sustain an article. WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unreliable sources in article. AllMusic is the one exception. The two at Metal Injection are rehashes of social media posts, so WP:SIGCOV is not met. There is only trivial coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable band. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent reasoning by nom. Metal Blade is actually a notable label, but they are not even on the roster anymore, but the sourcing is terrible (the only thing that is reliable is the Allmusic review, the others are spirit of metal, the site of Metal Blade, trivial "they broke up" news and promotional "new album is out" news), and just like the nom, couldn't find anything that establishes notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They released two albums on Metal Blade, and received coverage from PopMatters, Metal Hammer, Houston Press, and Allmusic. The fact that they are no longer signed to Metal Blade is irrelevant, as is the fact that sources that exist have not been added to the article yet. WP:BEFORE is strongly recommended, and this sometimes requires more careful use of search terms, especially when the band name has other common meanings. --Michig (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once again my searches did not show anything, but Michig's magic found enough to convince me that GNG has been met. Removed my delete !vote and siding with the keeps. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to vote it down, but this article fails WP:GNG there is no significant coverage certainly not from reliable resources to substantiate a stand-alone page. Duncan079 (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new editor concentrating on AFD comments it seems to get to confirmed status, as per their talk page Atlantic306 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Michig and clearly releasing on prominent labels passing WP:BAND#5. GuzzyG (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources linked to by Michig which show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are listed as such by WikiProject Music so there is no valid reason for the deletion of this article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They were (at least at one point) signed to a major label (Metal Blade), get a lot of coverage through popular metal-based publications, and can easily be found if searched. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 19:31, 15 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 13:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. Sai Deepak[edit]

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

Non notable lawyer with no significant coverage and has only routine litigations. No remarkable work done so far, no major post held and fails WP:BIO. The only "achievement" court case mentioned in the article had scores of lawyers so this work is not unique in any way. (see Entry of women to Sabarimala#History). Even if this is considered, the subject fails WP:SINGLEEVENT. Walrus Ji (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Court reporting isn't notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E - in addition, although he argued one case before his country's Supreme Court, he otherwise fails my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Andrew nyr talk contribs 17:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Ferguson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:YOUNGATH. Despite having a decent statistical career at an FBS school, playing a high-profile position, and earning all-conference honors, I am unable to find any significant coverage outside of The Albuquerque Journal. Was able to find several featured articles from that newspaper (which I have added to the article), but GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage. Did not play professionally in the NFL, only a practice squad player for two seasons, and did not win any major college football awards. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per this, he rushed for 3,500 yards in three seasons. That's better than "a decent statistical career". I'd be surprised if a player with three consecutive 1,000-yard season lacks GNG-level coverage, so this one warrants a closer look. Cbl62 (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: I'm surprised how little I was able to find considering his college productivity, but maybe you'll have better success. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. My initial searches turned up a ton of coverage in the Albuquerque Journal but not finding depth of coverage elsewhere. Cbl62 (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing a lot of coverage on newspapers.com in Albuquerque, not surprising as he was a statistical monster, but also some in Texas and Colorado. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki: Could you elaborate on the significant coverage you've found in Texas? I found a decent article in Colorado that I'm going to add to the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how significant the coverage, but here are some articles from Texas: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are there significant New Mexico newspapers that can be searched on-line other than the ABQ Journal? Cbl62 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find a good way to search archives of the Santa Fe New Mexican. I did find this and this but I wouldn't call either significant coverage of Ferguson. Cbl62 (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a good deal of significant coverage in the Daily Lobo (e.g., here, here, here, here), but it would not be considered independent since it's affiliated with UNM. Cbl62 (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's at least one piece from ESPN.com.
Also, FWIW, a few examples of coverage from the ABQ Journal: here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second article Eddy linked from the El-Paso Times is okay, the rest is mainly passing mentions. I'd also ignore Daily Lobo as not entirely independent, and the Santa Fe Mexican articles are passing mentions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Daily Lobo can be questioned on independence grounds (and said as much above) and doesn't count, at least not for AfD purposes. I'm still on the fence, but I don't agree that the ESPN piece is a "passing reference", since he is the subject of the article and headline. Likewise, the ABQ Journal coverage is very extensive. Cbl62 (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment College newspapers are sometimes, but not always, editorially independent of the university they are associated with. I don't know if this is the case for the Daily Lobo but if it is, then in my opinion it meets the requirements. Smartyllama (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Was on the fence for nearly three weeks as this AfD ran its course. The coverage is very significant in the The Albuquerque Journal and also in the Daily Lobo. Given that the latter may not be regarded as independent, this leaves us in a gray area under GNG. In the end, I lean toward "keep" per NBIO as Ferguson is "worthy of notice", "remarkable" or "significant, interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention or be recorded". In particular, a 1,000-yard season is considered a remarkable and noteworthy accomplishment for a college football player, and Ferguson did this not once but three times for a Division I program. Cbl62 (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr talk contribs 06:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew nyr: Relisting again? This has been on the board since November 17 and the only three votes since the nom was made have all been to "keep". Cbl62 (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I was on the fence over the relist, it can probably be closed as keep but I was playing it safe. Andrew nyr talk contribs 17:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. JGHowes ^talk 02:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narda E. Alcorn[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources outside of Broadway World (which generally makes up press releases and paid advertisements than anything else). It appears it is WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an article.

Thank you for assuming good faith and your volunteerism! Missvain (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has been the stage manager for quite a few major Broadway shows. And leads the stage management program of America's premiere drama school. How much more notable can a stage manager get? -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback! Being a stage manager for Broadway shows and teaching at a drama school, no matter how famous, doesn't mean you instantly qualify for a Wikipedia article per WP:INHERITED. Missvain (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ssilvers - becoming a stage manager on several Broadway shows is certainly enough for notability. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there documentation about that? I've never heard that being a stage manager = you get a Wikipedia article. Sorry, but I'm not convinced, but, it's not my decision in the end. Missvain (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you don't know what a Broadway production is. Look it up. This is not just any stage manager. It is always annoying when the nominator on one of these boards keeps responding to everyone else's input. If you have stated your reasons for deletion already, you don't need to keep "spinning" the facts and wikilawyering. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not very nice thing to assume. I've been to many on Broadway and off Broadway performances and even worked in theater in set design. Today, I work as a grantwriter for a multi-million dollar nonprofit that performs major Broadway shows in the Bay Area and was named the #1 Broadway theater show in the Bay Area by Broadway World. Being a successful stage manager does not mean you automatically get a Wikipedia article. If you can present reliable, secondary sources that cover the subject in significant ways then I'm all ears and I'm sure Alexandermcnabb would be, too! Please keep things civil and respectful. Missvain (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr talk contribs 06:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no notability guidelines for stage managers, but looking at the guidelines for composers, filmakers, directors, musicians this person would fail any of those notability requirements. Sustained coverage, widespread influence, recognition of remarkable work that has had a lasting and memorable impact on an area of the arts. That's just not what stage managers do, is it? Fails GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF.Kolma8 (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ She doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or any SNG that I see. There is a lack of significant coverage about her. I thought the Michael Merritt award might be significant, but their goals are to "implement the ideas and voices of the Black community" and for "uplifting young Chicago designers and technicians and promote diversity of designers and technicians in the theatre arts."[12] Commendable, but I don't think the award is sufficient to show WP notability. She seems to have been successful, but lots of successful businessmen have had pages deleted on WP. In the end, listings of her jobs, passing mentions, and repeated mentions by one source of being appointed chair of the Stage Management Program at Yale do not constitute significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The comments below have made me rethink my original vote. I am not truly convinced by either side of this discussion so I have changed my vote to neutral. Papaursa (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oh, good grief! The Michael Merritt award is an artistic award, and for tenured academics in departments such as theatre, dance, art, etc, these kinds of awards certainly contribute to academic notability. (It is no more a "businesmen" award than an Oscar for costume design.) There are some published reviews of her book, including [13] and [14]. Her appointment at Yale in 2018 was deemed sufficiently significant to be covered by the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education [15]. There are also some news sources covering her personal life, e.g. [16][17]. Enough here to pass WP:PROF, considering her field, and WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:PROF isn't really well set up for people who are practicing artists rather than scholars, but there's a case to be made for criterion #C2 (significant national-level award). More, I think the BroadwayWorld coverage suggests that her appointment at the full professor level at an Ivy League school is a big deal, and I think she also passes several criteria of WP:CREATIVE. There isn't really a shortage of adequate sources for an article, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, you're usually pretty good with sources. Can you tell me which ones you found show you significant, independent coverage? Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not very long, so I'm surprised that you are still asking for GNG-type coverage when the criteria I mentioned are PROF and CREATIVE, and that you didn't discern from my comment the sources I had in mind, but: She is covered independently and in-depth by the Broadway World coverage of her Yale appointment, and by the Merritt Award citation's coverage of her stage career. (The Merritt Award citation is not independent coverage of her receipt of the Merritt Award, of course, but there's quite a bit more about her in the citation than just the award itself.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you'd found something more. I remain unconvinced of her meeting WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NPROF, which is why I was hoping for more GNG coverage. I will be changing my vote to neutral since I'm not strongly convinced by either side. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are local awards, such as the Michael Merritt that are self-described as Chicago awards, really considered national awards? Is every Ivy League professor considered automatically notable? That seems to be what is being claimed. If I'm misunderstanding what is being said or the appropriate guidelines then please let me know. My point wasn't that she was a "businessman", rather it was that being successful in a field is not grounds for automatic WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is not an official criterion, having a tenured appointment at a place like Yale or NUY (and Alcorn had both) is already a strong indication of academic notability, particularly when a faculty member is hired specifically to head some high profile program. That was the case here, as evidenced, for example, by an article in Broadway World about Alcorn's appointment at Yale[18]. With respect to awards, there are "local" and "local" awards, one has to exercise basic common sense here. Chicago is the third largest city in the U.S. and a major worldwide cultural center, with hundreds of theaters and music and dance companies. A "local" award there is worth a lot more than a local award from many other places, and it does contibute to notability. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A "local" award there is worth a lot more than a local award from many other places" - That's a pretty egregious piece of American exceptionalism, in my humble opinion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have made the same statement about London, Paris, New Deli and Moscow. Nsk92 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI that Broadway World is a press release. Missvain (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still hoping we can see some great, reliable secondary sources that aren't mere mentions or press releases or just from one source, Broadway World, or primary sources. Again, anyone who works in the performing arts (I do) is well aware that Broadway World does puff pieces on non-notable chorus members if given a chance. I just don't feel that the majority of coverage coming from that, including press releases, are enough for WP:SIGCOV and meeting WP:GNG. I disagree that a tenured position in a high profile program is of notability unless there is coverage stating that this tenured professors is historically or culturally significant in their position. I know many tenured professors in prominent programs that don't have - and aren't eligible at this point - for Wikipedia articles. Also that award is not nationally or even regionally notable. While I am the nominator, I am still not convinced. It seems people are giving a lot of leeway to the subject based on WP:INHERITED. I also don't appreciate the tone of many of these comments. Please keep it civil and respectful. Missvain (talk) 16:36, 13 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Profile Defenders[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

not notable, also deleted prior Jilljoejack (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT - I looked the page over and I honestly have no idea what it's trying to describe as its formatting and grammar are atrocious and it doesn't even describe in any clear detail what the company in question is - it seems to be a WP:COATRACK for the legal cases it has been involved in? There's honestly probably a notable subject here but the article needs to be blown up and started over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most sourcing is poor and the content is a hot mess, but the few actual media sources suggest there’s something here. I think it can be extensively rewritten and the sourcing culled, and I just tagged it accordingly. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm striking my keep vote and voting delete. I just spent some more time reading the material thinking I could fix this, but on second glance the sourcing is poor. For example, the WaPost piece is an opinion column, and the Inc piece is a guest writer. If you take out the court filings there's not much left. I think it would just be faster and easier to blow it up, and only rewrite it if enough decent sources can be found. So I'm going for WP:TNT. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I said on creation, "unlike in 2013 when it went to AFD, there are independent reliable sources". The article seems to attract a lot of attention from WP:SPAs. tedder (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Except unlike in 2013, the appropriate guideline, WP:NCORP, has been rewritten in parts and now provides more exacting requirements for references to establish notability. The article itself has too many references (and a lot of them are dead) and most fail the criteria for establishing notability. Tedder, can you provide links to the best WP:THREE sources you believe meet the requirements as per WP:NCORP (and especially WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH)? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly surprised- but there are some fairly in-depth articles. Inc. has a nice interview, VICE provides a good overview of the legal shenanigans (note this is an updated link from what is in the ref), and the articles from Eugene Volokh and Public Citizen's Paul Levy do a good job of explaining the company (and it's part of a series of entries about them in Volokh's articles). You probably object to the last one because it's in the opinion section, but please at least skim it to see how much depth is there- and as WP:ORGIND describes, it certainly qualifies as "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking". Also note "CL&P Blog" is the official Public Citizen blog. It's easy to discount because it's just on typepad. tedder (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tim Templeton is 99.999% a paid editor and not disclosing. Edit history tells it all. This disaster of a page should be deleted. While some of the sources might be reliable, it fails corp and in-depth by a mile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jilljoejack (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI - Jilljoejack is a brand new editor who immediately started following my AfD votes and harassing me. Oddly familiar with corp and in-depth requirements for a new user. Sock investigation opened. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Tim Templeton is a paid editor. Just look at the edit history. He creates company pages that aren't notable then wastes Wikipedia's time reviewing and deleting. He never discloses. He should be banned and he fails the "duck test".Jilljoejack (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Personal attacks aren't tolerated here. If any of you are thinking of putting up a fight, do it somewhere else, NOT here. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - nom Jilljoejack indeffed for sock puppetry and persistent attacks, and extended protection has been rightfully applied to this page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Court documents fail the criteria as the company is often self-described or described by the opposing litigation party (both are unreliable for the purposes of establishing notability). Many of the articles have been written by relying entirely on interviews or information provided by the company or are from blogs, or the blog sections of news websites. Others are mere mentions with no details on the company. In order to meet WP:ORGIND, a reference must contain "Independent Content" which is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Based on the absence of any good references for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails to meet the notability requirements, especially those set in WP:ORGIND. While there are a lot of sources mentioned most of them are blogs and interviews (as already mentioned above) which are neither independent nor original. Momer313 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources from Columbus Dispatch, Herald Journal, Tech Cocktail and Search Engine Journal in the article seem to be reliable. And so are the ones indicated by Tedder. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:JUNK not notable, also deleted prior as it has no redeeming qualities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 07:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Eric Carr (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tedder is a compromised paid editor who posted this page solely as a vendetta over a payment dispute for paid edits on Wikipedia. Conflict of interest noticeboard has been posted. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Tedder Eric Carr (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with a WP:TNT deletion because the first version of the article is a short, acceptable version that can be reverted to if there is consensus against the current version.
The coverage in The Columbus Dispatch, Vice, and The Washington Post are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The sources include quotes from the subject but also include independent analysis and negative coverage.
The Columbus Dispatch article includes negative coverage of Profile Defenders: "Sometimes, these online-reputation firms can get a bad rap themselves. Last month, Park Avenue Funding, a New York mortgage-investment firm, filed a suit against Profile Defenders alleging company was using confidential information to extort money from it and damage its online reputation. Ruddie, of Profile Defenders, said “the lawsuit filed by PAF is frivolous and based on assertions without merit.”"
The Vice article casts Profile Defenders' work in a negative light: "Linked to at least some of the cases is a selection of companies run by a Richart Ruddie, including SEO Profile Defense Network LLC, and Profile Defenders. Profile Defenders specialises in 'online reputation management,' according to its website. In short, these companies and others are allegedly carrying out a pretty novel tactic to clean up content that would reflect negatively on its clients: filing fake lawsuits to encourage websites or online services to remove content."
Cunard (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NCORP including on Columbus Dispatch one-liner and similar cursory coverage. Blacklisteffort (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI can't find any references that meet the models for building up outstanding quality. A significant number of the articles have been composed by depending completely on meetings or data gave by the organization or are from online journals, or the blog areas of information sites. Others are simple notices without any subtitles on the organization. 21:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecoat12 (talk • contribs)
Keep per User:Cunard Dq209 (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While this discussion could be considered compromised due to the presence of sockpuppetry by the nominator I have, considering the rather thoughtful discussion by those advancing both delete and keep, chosen to protect the page and relist the discussion in hopes that further disruption will be minimized and consensus found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at this ref that is mentioned by @Superastig: i.e. the Herald Journal is a press-release at [19]. It says on it. PRNewswire. scope_creep^Talk 15:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4 and DEL14. I can do a review of the refs if anybody wants it. The first 10 references are very poor. scope_creep^Talk 15:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr talk contribs 06:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or if someone's feeling exceptionally kind, return it to draft until someone can make something of it. It's messy and promotional. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:50, 9 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 13:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conner, California[edit]

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

Durham calls it a locality, not in Gudde. Found an old newspaper result calling it a shipping point on the railroad. WP:GEOLAND does not seem to be met. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. FOARP (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and likely fails WP:GEOLAND Spiderone 11:03, 15 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 01:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceneda, California[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND. Gudde calls it a railroad station, Durham calls it a locality. Searching on newspapers.com for Ceneda in Kern County, CA papers brings up one result, a scanner error for the last name Cepeda. Searching for "Ceneda station" in California papers brings up nothing. Results for Ceneda in California papers are scanner errors for Canada and Orlando Cepeda. This doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. FOARP (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have looked at a number of these, I made a suggestion on their talk page that the Nom might want to use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion for some (most/all?) of these going forward. I may be mistaken in my assessment, so if anyone feels prod is not the right choice please speak up. Jeepday (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and most likely fails WP:GEOLAND as well; I agree that most of these would probably qualify for uncontroversial deletion Spiderone 15:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:40, 16 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crome, California[edit]

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

Not in Gudde. Durham calls it a locality. Hits for Crome in Kern County, CA newspapers.com results are just last names and misspellings of chrome. No evidence that WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG is met. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. FOARP (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:37, 16 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venola, California[edit]

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

Durham calls it a locality on the railroad. Topos don't show much of anything here. Newspapers.com results in Kern County, CA papers are all either names or scanner errors. Not in Gudde. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. JGHowes ^talk 02:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamblin, California[edit]

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

A subdivision on the east side of Hanford, whose water supply problems were not, in my opinion, sufficient to achieve independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 9 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 13:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helm Corner, California[edit]

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

Maybe Durham explains why this even has a name, but it's just, as far as I can tell, a place where one road has a T intersection with another. Other than Durham, GHits are either clickbait or just wrong. Mangoe (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nope, Durham p. 1045 just calls it a "locality, 4.5 miles west of Corcoran," citing the same topo map you're looking at. Mass-producer misrepresented the source, which does not support statement it's a community. Reywas92^Talk 06:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. FOARP (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I swear these small fry failed geolands are going to haunt me in my sleep... lol Missvain (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard, California[edit]

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

Another "were they actually paying attention" GNIS entry, the spot is unlabelled in early topos, but when the name appears, it is placed directly under a box labelled "cotton gin". And yes, there is still a cotton grower and processing business at the same location. Mangoe (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Durham p. 1122 cites the same topo map as the GNIS, but appropriately calls it a locality. Not a community, not notable. Reywas92^Talk 06:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails WP:GEOLAND, as with the other California articles listed recently. FOARP (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG and any other applicable guideline Spiderone 14:51, 10 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Corcoran, California[edit]

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

Old enough topos show this as an industrial spur which has blossomed into what is apparently the main J G Boswell cotton processing plant. At any rate, it certainly was never a settlement distinct from Corcoran proper. Mangoe (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. FOARP (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:30, 16 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley, Kings County, California[edit]

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

Yet another siding in Kings County, with topos showing at first a couple of what look to be warehouses, and then nothing but orchards. In fact for the past thirty years or so the strip next to the siding has been occupied by a fertilizer plant of some sort. Again, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. FOARP (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Spiderone 11:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:28, 16 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rossi, California[edit]

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

Rossi was once a rail junction, and with the elimination of the second line, has been reduced to a passing siding. Clearly not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. FOARP (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:12, 16 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, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remnoy, California[edit]

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

A California Public Utilities Commission report of 1953 describes Remnoy as "a non-agency station" it permitting its closure. As usual, label drift has caused the location to deviate from the original spot, but old enough topos show a single building, obviously the station, where in the past five years an irrigation pond has been dug. Other than that it's just field after field. The bit about the "juke joint" was added by an IP and is hardly credible, not that it adds significant notoriety. Mangoe (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. FOARP (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:13, 16 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, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reef Station, California[edit]

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

The GNIS compilers dropped the ball on this one, because in older topos, this place is labelled "oil pumping station". The older aerials are not high enough resolution to make sense of but they aren't inconsistent with the GMaps shot, which shows an obviously industrial facility. Perhaps the GNIS folks didn't have another term to use for such a site, but it's obviously not a "populated place" nor a "community" of any sort. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:07, 16 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 13:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Francis (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate who does not pass WP:NPOL. Only one of the references, the one from the Mirror, is remotably notable; the BBC "reference" is just the results of the election he came in fourth place in, and all the other references are either from primary sources or from a local radio station. The positions he has actually held over the years are all non-notable. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 03:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither having stood as a candidate in elections he did not win nor serving on the organizational board of a political party are "inherent" notability freebies under WP:NPOL, and the article does not demonstrate that he has preexisting notability for other things independently of his political activity. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected political candidates are not default notable and we do not have enough sourcing to show Francis notable on his own merits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We almost always delete local/regional party leaders. Bearian (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Failed political candidate and internal party apparatchik are not enough to meet WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 21:21, 15 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, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murray, California[edit]

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

I have to think this was in fact Mr. Murray's farm; it has since been replaced by Westside Harvesting, but at any rate it has always been a single establishment, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. FOARP (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:05, 16 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 13:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 murder of a Chang Jung Christian University student[edit]

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

Simply not enough long-term effects to pass the bar of WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sad but not very striking criminal case. Geschichte (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- murder by strangers is always disturbing, but without more of the context, I have difficulty in accepting that this is notable. If kept rename to Murder of Chung, or better still with the rest of his name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no sign of long term legacy of this vile act. If more of the impact is covered in depth in reliable sources then the article can be recreated imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCRIME Edge3 (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sad but not uncommon. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 15 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucerne, Kings County, California[edit]

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

This was the switch to a short spur servicing what some topos identify as a winery. The latter appears to have been replaced by a house, sitting in the midst of endless groves and fields; the main line is still there but there's no trace of the route of the spur. Rather obviously not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across the following statement in a USDA soil report: "At Lucerne Vineyard a branch spur is built southward about a mile to facilitate shipments from the large warehouses of that company." Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. Note to closer: I seriously suggest not relisting these California AFDs unless someone finds a good keep rationale as there's thousands of them coming down the pipe. Someone spent literally years creating tons of these articles and they all have basically the same problem: they rely on bad GNIS data and at most one other source (Durham) which they typically mischaracterise (e.g., Durham will say there was a single building at a location in 1870-something and the author wrote an article about a ghost-town at that site). A "locality" in Durham does not mean an inhabited place. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG and any other applicable guideline Spiderone 14:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. The prolific spam article creator should be nominated for account deletion, especially considering the spam creation seems to be continuing. // Timothy :: talk 15:25, 16 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lam Yi Young[edit]

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

BLP may not pass WP:GNG. seems to be a typical public service job progression. unable to find anything of note in terms of his contribution as a leader among the refs. also noted that this make use of LinkedIn and Wikipedia as ref as well. awards are commonly awarded awards for public service/public servants of significantly long public service career and have arisen to leadership positions. – robertsky (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have been turned into a CV but he was chief executive of the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore. We normally keep chief execs. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Philafrenzy, I believe that he is notable enough to keep this page. Although I do realise that a large portion of the article is of less notability and does not need to be described in detail. As such, I suggest to keep the article and propose the following changes:
- Summarise his career in the civil service in a paragraph or two (adding on to first sentence in Civil Service section):
  - For earlier service (before MPA): Only name the ministries in which he served in.
  - For later, more senior positions (after MPA): Include the position and organisation, with no need for further elaboration (such as the ministers and possibly the time period)
  - More significant time periods such as of total period in civl service or in senior civil service
- As his time as chief exec of MPA is more notable and publicised, with more refs (such as at https://www.mpa.gov.sg/ and other news), there can be more elaboration on his contributions at MPA in a separate section
- I believe there is potential for future expansion on his contributions during his time as CEO of SBF starting next year, which will be a more notable position
- References can also be cleaned up to remove refs such as LinkedIn and Wikipedia
- I will be drafting some of these changes in my own user subpage at User:Eliyr/Lam_Yi_Young_Proposed_Changes

-Eliyr (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Follow up: My proposed changes would also involve removing all previous board positions as it is largely unnotable and unnecessary -Eliyr (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've made most of my proposed changes other than the new section on his contributions at MPA which is still being worked on in my user subpage. The article should now have less unnecessary/unnotable info and poor references. -Eliyr (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:00, 15 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 13:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TIM Group[edit]

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

I could find almost no media sources that would begin to establish this company's notability. This company was acquired by MergerMarket Group in 2017, which in turn is now a subsidiary of Acuris Group. The last information I was able to find was that it had just 49 employees. It's not to be confused with TIM s.p.a., the holding company for Telecom Italia. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A long-term article created/updated by WP:SPAs. Searches for TIM Group, the former YouDevise name, and Trade Idea Monitor are finding only routine, announcement-based coverage; I am not seeing the level of coverage needed for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP, neither the references or Googling this company suggest notabiility. It could be redirected to Acuris. --Devokewater (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete with no objection to draftifiction with a requirement that notability be made clear with better references. WEPrism222 (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC) WEPrism222 (talk)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability and his little sources. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:17, 13 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Murray[edit]

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

In my view, it doesn't pass WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Even though there are many sources that talk about the catch, I feel like they still count as WP:ROUTINE coverage. There's nothing to indicate that this Hail Mary is more notable compared to any other Hail Mary or other exciting play in the regular season. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 Arizona Cardinals season, per WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. It is a plausible search term, however, and redirects are WP:CHEAP, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the fact that NOTNEWS is one of the weakest rationales for deletion, a detailed reading of RECENT (which, again is not a policy that should drive a deletion discussion) actually makes a good case for keeping this, because it undoubtedly passes the GNG and arguing otherwise is silly: "[B]y documenting timely material with reliable sources at the outset, more permanent sources will hopefully be found and used later." The sources we have in the article are reliable and numerous, and User:WuTang94 has added more sources that detail the continued significance of the play. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of significant coverage that ranks the play among the best of the season and even all time from flagship periodicals like Sporting News, The Ringer,Washington Post. Not to mention Murray is trying to trademark the phrase. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 04:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a far greater likelihood that this winds up being nothing more than an interesting footnote in an otherwise humdrum non-playoff season for the Cardinals. Regardless, it's way, way, way WP:TOOSOON to be going around calling this one of the greatest NFL plays of all time. That's some ridiculous kind of hyperbole going on, there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see any significant reason this is any different than any other major game-winner we have a page for. Its sourcing is impeccable. All the rationale that has been cited for deleting or redirecting is flimsy. There wasn't a page created for the Derek Carr game-winner against the Jets (to my knowledge), so clearly all the sigcov this received is indicative of its notability and importance. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a further point re hyperbole: Maybe it is. But it doesn't matter here. It's not Johnny Cards Fan saying that the play is one of the greatest Hail Marys of all time. It's one of the oldest and most significant American sports publications saying that it is "one of the greatest game-winning Hail Mary passes in NFL history." The source says what it says. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. As a Buffalo Bills fan I wouldn't mind if the page were deleted but jokes and bias aside, I think it merits keeping. Agreed with Etzedek24 that coverage is aplenty per WP:SIGCOV, plus a Hail Mary Pass to win a game is very rare, in addition to the manner in which it occurred in this instance. Other similar regular season plays that eventually became classic moments in NFL history include the River City Relay, Miracle in Motown (another Hail Mary play) and the Miracle in Miami.--WuTang94 (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Honestly can the Cardinals ever have anything? Why is this even being considered being deleted? The Packers have a page for their Hail Mary in Detroit a few seasons ago, see Miracle in Motown. Why don’t we get one!? This is special for Arizona and could end up being the difference between them making and not making the playoffs. Other last second plays like Minneapolis Miracle and Miracle in Miami from the past few seasons have pages. The Hail Murray is just as special as those plays and was just as viral. The Hail Murray will likely go down as the play of 2020 in all the NFL. Also by the way, there’s even a page for the Fail Mary! Game winning Hail Marys are extremely rare and if you take down the Hail Murray then you definitely also have to take down the Fail Mary, Miracle in Motown, etc . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4B00:A880:452C:71F3:B5DD:43CC (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:248:4B00:A880:452C:71F3:B5DD:43CC: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OTHERSTUFF etc etc (ceci n'est pas un arguement), but how is this case functionally different from any others? WP:OSE's nutshell says that precedential value isn't automatically an invalid rationale. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you want to delete this, then delete all iconic NFL articles like Fail Mary, Miracle in Motown, Miracle in Miami, etc since its not WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Although Etzedek24 has his reasoning is kind of correct, the NFL and multiple sports outlets always talk about this play every other week and what everyone on here says, it will probably affect both the Bills and Cardinals in playoff seeding and Murray is trying to trademark the play. Once a lot of media outlets and announcers dub iconic moments like Malice at the Palace, a Wikipedia article will usually be made regarding the play. Although I can see it being deleted but like I and everyone said, it has a lot of significant coverage and will most likely will be the #1 play of the season. Swagging (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swagging: Do you have evidence that "the NFL and multiple sports outlets always talk about this play every other week"? That type of coverage is what is desired here, and would pass WP:NSPORTSEVENT as sustained coverage outside what would typically be covered for a routine event. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: The "Hail Murray" was mentioned here in this recent article. Specific quote: "Since the miraculous 'Hail Murray,' the Arizona Cardinals have stumbled, losing three straight games and falling out of a playoff spot.". There was also this from the Buffalo News quoting NFL Network just before the Bills-49ers game, plus the pylon used during the play was sent to the Pro Football HoF according to this from the HoF website. I guess you could argue that this catch was like Odell Beckham Jr.'s one-handed grab back in 2014 which never received a Wikipedia article because the Giants wound up losing anyways, but if anything, it can also be argued that the "Hail Murray" is just as notable as plays like the River City Relay and Miracle in Miami, with the Saints and Dolphins also going to miss the playoffs, to counter Ejgreen77's point about the Cards potentially missing the playoffs.

Though, if it is indeed WP:TOOSOON and we should wait until the "Hail Murray" wins awards such as "Best play of the year" in the postseason awards, I wouldn't be opposed to draftifying this article until then. But what made this play outstanding was that Hopkins literally out-jumped and fought through three defenders to catch the ball and snatch a near-last-second win, which you don't see very often.--WuTang94 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to draftify it. In my opinion, the fact that national periodicals like Sporting News and The Washington Post (both non-local) devoted articles to the win (in addition to what you have already said), that satisfies the particular in WP:NSPORTSEVENT criterion regarding coverage: "especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved." We can quibble about "front page" but the widespread national coverage is strong evidence for keeping this as it is. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policies are WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, and WP:TOOSOON. It's impossible for us to evaluate the long-term significance of this play because it literally happened less than a month ago. If it still looks like one of the most significant NFL plays of all time at this time next year, sure, go ahead and create an article. But, creating one right now is simply way too soon. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Etzedek24: The Washington Post appears to write individual articles for every single NFL game. Here are their stories for last week's entire slate of games: Falcons-Saints, Browns-Titans, Lions-Bears, Bengals-Dolphins, Vikings-Jaguars, Colts-Texans, Raiders-Jets, Giants-Seahawks, Rams-Cardinals, Patriots-Chargers, Packers-Eagles, Broncos-Chiefs, Washington-Steelers, Bills-49ers, Cowboys-Ravens. It's WP:ROUTINE coverage of an NFL game and does not rise to the level of significance to pass WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: The key difference here, if you spent more than 5 seconds looking at those many links, is that while yes, the WaPo publishes routine game recaps, that the article I cited above was specifically about the play in question, not a general game recap in the vein of the refs you have bombed in here. Everything you have cited is a very short game recap which is functionally different from the detailed article they wrote about the Hail Murray. The coverage is there and the way it's being ignored is mind-boggling. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another thing that I believe works against the long-term significance here is the circumstances under which this play occurred. This play occurred during a random regular season game (unlike things like the Minneapolis Miracle or the Music City Miracle that occurred in the postseason) between two out-of-conference opponents who rarely ever play each other (unlike something like the Miracle in Motown, which took place as part of the wider Lions–Packers rivalry). Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per arguments made by Ejgreen77. I actually don't think that Miracle in Motown or Miracle in Miami have long-term significance either (though they did win Play of the Year awards), but that would be a different discussion. I would argue that Fail Mary has long-term significance, as it hastened the end of the 2012 NFL referee lockout. Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Natg 19: Miracle in Motown does have significance as the longest Hail Mary completed in NFL history (which should have been put in that page's intro), and I think there was another sentence or something saying that the Hail Murray was just the second occurrence in which two go-ahead touchdowns happened within the final 40 seconds of any NFL game, hence somewhat meeting WP:NSPORTSEVENT. My biggest concern about this play meriting a Wikipedia article is that playoff seeding has yet to be solidified for either the Cardinals or Bills, hence WP:TOOSOON and WP:RECENT, but media coverage of the Hail Murray has been ample, hence meeting the WP:SIGCOV criteria.--WuTang94 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Ejgreen. It is too recent to know if the play will have long term significance. Redirecting these games has precidence, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan State Miracle.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: If the page does get redirected, what would the threshold be for restoring it? Winning play of the year? --WuTang94 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering that there aren't articles for every "play of the year" (an objective term at that), or that there is no benchmark for including "plays of the year." I think Ejgreen's point about being the circumstances. Just because WP:ILIKEIT as an OU fan, doesn't mean it should be included. It might be several years before we know for sure. A play on words doesn't mean it should be included. He might have several over the course of his career.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The widespread, non-routine coverage means it should be included. The question is whether or not this play is independently notable based on the provided sources, which, in my opinion, it undoubtedly is. To WP:THREE (okay, four) it, you have a Sporting News article that calls it one of the best Hail Marys of all time, an article from a paper of record specifically about the play in question (beyond a routine game recap), recognition from the league as a "miracle play" (through NFL Films) and recognition from the Pro Football Hall of Fame, which has already put on display an end zone pylon from the game. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Etz, you can WP:BADGER everyone that disagrees with you all you want but this just hasn't developed WP:SUSTAINED or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE yet! We have precedence (which I cited) that suggests that we should hold off.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I seem like a badger (which is fair, since I am a Wisconsinite), it is because it seems like the proceedings here have ignored the improved sourcing (which points in the direction of continued coverage) of the article, besides my replying to a ping and comment on my own comment. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as others have stated feels more appropriate to redirect this page. SIGCOV is clearly met, but if that's the criteria then many plays would qualify no? Seems to fall into the "black swan event" right now, but that may change. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 01:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant play in a significant and thrilling game. I believe that this game, which already has a nickname, should be kept. This is also a career highlight in the young career of Kyler Murray and it should be noted as such.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is news coverage of this play still to this day, so I do believe it has enough significance and importance. This play alone will be a career highlight by Kyler Murray and DeAndre Hopkins. Hopkins made one of the best catches of his career. From the scramble to avoid a sack, to the remarkable throw before running out of bounds and an amazing catch that will be talked about for ages, this play was truly a masterpiece. — CryptoKey98 (talk · contribs) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any examples of this continuing coverage? All the coverage I've seen ends around 3 weeks ago. Everything after that is just passing mentions of the play in Cardinals game previews. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the additions above and in the article by User:WuTang94. One is from last week. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming mentions of the play in articles were counted as coverage. In my opinion, the play being mentioned in game previews, shall not be disregarded. It should add to it's importance/significance as the play is still actively being discussed about a month later. Also the play is mentioned in this game preview, not just the Cardinals game previews. — CryptoKey98 (talk · contribs) 15:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are WP:YouTube, WP:Twitter, and WP:BLOGs such as Awfulannouncing, and SB Nation used as sources in the article. Generally these are seen as unreliable sources.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UCO2009bluejay: Can you point to an RSN discussion or similar perhaps WikiProject discussion about SB Nation? The RSN discussion I looked at was from 2013 and, I daresay, a bit outdated (it also called Bleacher Report unreliable, which is not the case in 2020). I'm wary of this moving into WP:JUSTABLOG territory, since SB Nation does have (now, at least, if they didn't before) significant editorial oversight. The other things you've mentioned seem to be cited in context for verifiability purposes (particularly the tweets and AA post), not necessarily purposes of establishing notability. And one YouTube video comes from the NFL itself, which should be treated accordingly under WP:RSPYT. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British International School of Sulaymaniyah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schools are required to pass WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG and this one clearly doesn't. Having to close down due to COVID does not justify an article. Spiderone 17:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spiderone. This is a fairly new school - less than ten years old - and private. I can't figure out if it has three or four of my required 7 out of 10 factors, but in any case, it's not notable. Please ping me if you find better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brasil Madden[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication that the subject meets any notability criteria. Members of nobility (or whatever the subject here is, its very hard to tell from the content) are not automatically notable. I cannot find any sources to support the text, not to mind to support notability. That we cannot even broadly state when and where this person lived or died suggests that no material biographical sources are available. Of the three sources linked in the article, the first and the third do not mention the subject. At all. And, if the subject is in either somewhere (perhaps under a different spelling which I am missing) it seems likely that any mention is a trivial/passing one. Alongside dozens of other directory style listings. Happy to be corrected. But I just do not see how this (and frankly some other articles in the same "succession box series") meet any applicable notability criteria. Guliolopez (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability; this could probably be redirected somewhere but I'm not certain where Spiderone 08:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~Could this be Breasal Ó Madadhan? Brasil Madden may be an Anglicisation of Breasal Ó Madadhan after all~~ CiphriusKane (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on reading the articles it seems that Breasal is actually an ancestor of Brasil, and the page seems to be a copypaste of Ó Madadhan chiefs based on pages like Breasal Madden CiphriusKane (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very obscure, no notability, article has zero substance whatsoever. There looks to be a bunch more just like this one that should also be deleted.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Depending on the outcome of this discussion (in particular if there is a clear consensus), then I will likely either propose the others in the "series" be deleted. Or merge/redirect them somewhere. If a clear "somewhere" can be identified. Guliolopez (talk) 19:02, 9 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stegeman, California[edit]

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

It's not clear why it takes so long for this to show up on the topos, as there is a railroad regulation case from 1914 concerning a carload of hay shipped from this point. But it is a rail spot, and at some point (the topos are a bit muddled on this) a large rice processing facility was put next to the tracks, courtesy of the Farmers Rice Cooperative, which now calls it the Stegeman Drying Facility. The rails are gone, and this plant is all there is to Stegeman. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete In Durham though not cited. Durham says "locality: 3.25 miles south-southwest of Princeton...", not that it is a notable community or settlement, as is obvious on the maps. Reywas92^Talk 00:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. Note to closer: I seriously suggest not relisting these California AFDs unless someone finds a good keep rationale as there's thousands of them coming down the pipe. Someone spent literally years creating tons of these articles and they all have basically the same problem: they rely on bad GNIS data and at most one other source (Durham) which they typically mischaracterise (e.g., Durham will say there was a single building at a location in 1870-something and the author wrote an article about a ghost-town at that site). A "locality" in Durham does not mean an inhabited place. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 9 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RIM Charts[edit]

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

Non-Notable subject, advertising, a total of 40 reference is of same kind, (i.e repeted 40 times) . Sturdyankit (chat) 03:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with your proposal to delete this article. Furthermore, sources are provided. Please consider this.–Fandi89 (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it has No significant coverege on independent relieble sources , therefore NO evidence of Notability , Samat lib (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I voted for a delete and the change was deleted by a sock puppet account. If there is more notability coverage for the company than it can stay otherwise it is not up to Wikipedia standards. Eric Carr (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your !vote because it was an unsubstantiated accusation and personal attack against another editor. You are allowed, of course, to !vote "delete". However, given that these appear to be the accepted national charts for Malaysia, and the parent organization was nearly unanimously kept, what Wikipedia standards is it not up to? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: extending discussion to allow Eric Carr a chance to respond with his reasoning, when he comes off block.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Several refs are Facebook links, primary sources. Not notable. Vikram Vincent 07:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:28, 9 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, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikstarr[edit]

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

Non-notable singer and music producer. The article does not indicate that any of the musical notability criteria are satisfied. The article also does not indicate that general notability is satisfied.

References 1, 4, and 5 are interviews, and so are not secondary coverage. References 2 and 3 are not about the subject but about an ancestor.

If this article were submitted at AFC, it would be declined. It was submitted at AFC, and was declined. The author then insulted the reviewers in edit summaries, but this is a content forum. Creating two copies, one in article space and one in draft space, is sometimes done to game the system to prevent draftification. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

*Keep As per Notability guidelines. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, hence the subject is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article.

Significant coverage in this instance includes verified coverage from: The Guardian Newspaper ThisDay Newspaper The Nation Newspaper The Tribune Newspaper among others. "Reliable" means that sources have editorial integrity and hence allow for verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. These newspapers appear to be reputable, national daily newspapers and on closer inspection are the biggest circulating and authoritative publications in Africa with a combined reach over 200 million people. This is significant coverage. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. One of the independent sources refer to the subject creating a new genre of music. Regardless, notability in this instance is established on the grounds of the existence of suitable sources as above.

~~The sources address the subject directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract further content.~~

Furthermore, the subject has verifiably had their work broadcast nationally as per The Guardian Newspaper. The subject has over ten thousand monthly listeners on Spotify. The references are “Independent of the subject" and excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.

~~Harmonyfair69 (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)~~ Blocked. scope_creep^Talk 08:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

As per wiki criteria for musicians and ensembles the subject as had:

Multiple non-trivial published works(newspaper articles) appearing in sources that are reliable. Notably, The Guardian newspaper, ThisDay Newspapers, Tribune Newspaper and The Nation. These are non-trivial and review the subjects work. They don't appear restricted to release info and there was no mere mention of performance dates or track listing.
The subject of the article [as per s.7 of criteria for musicians] also appears to be a prominent representative of a niche, but notable musical style in Nigeria. Reputable sources objectively referred to it as a new musical genre. This directly feeds into s.3 and s.4 of wiki criteria for composers and lyricist.
There are objective, reliable sources namely: The Guardian Newspaper among others citing that the object has influence, technique and repertory for a particular music genre.
[As per s.11 of wiki criteria for musicians] the subject’s work has been verifiably cited as achieving National Radio and television network airplay in Nigeria
Notability is not subjective, but rather is objective based on reputable independent references or sources, especially for a musician or composer.
Therefore, based on the adherence to the criteria for musical notability as stipulated by Wikipedia guidelines as fulfilled above, the subject is newish but objectively and reasonably passes the musical Notability criterion

Moniworld (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Seems rather local, but important. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, might be a case of TOOSOON. This is supposed to be a biography article and the current sources are simply not reliable enough. Also no chart placings or awards (NMUSIC not met) - Xclusivzik (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it fails WP:MUSICBIO evidence of Notability not found Samat lib (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep a simple google search shows subject is notable. References from newspapers appear sufficient to me. (Chapelle69 (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)) Blocked. -Xclusivzik (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Em-mustapha 04:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPer nom. (～～～～). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.240.69 (talk) 22:48, 15 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) 03:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elham Hatami[edit]

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

Subject is Not Notable(yet). Sturdyankit (chat) 17:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here indicates that she is in any way notable as a filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete English search of Google News and university library databases show no indication of RS existing. (There does appear to be a scholar named Elham Hatami (chemistry? based on the titles of articles they've written) but I think they are different people.) If someone can find/read sources in Persian/searching her Persian name that would help to meet a GNG/ANYBIO claim, more than happy to change my vote. Samsmachado (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are many links that come up on a google search in Farsi, though many of them are interviews as this is the preferred format of many publications. In any case we can see that she has a well established career as an actress. She has national standing, having won a Crystal Simorgh, and international standing, having been on a jury at Cannes. 1, 2, 3. Mccapra (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No effective sources. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's not just that there are no sources; there's no real notable claims for sourcing to substantiate. If more stuff shows up, I'll change my mind, but I don't think this meets GNG. jp×g 03:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:SIGCOV. It may be too soon on her career. Whether Iranian or American, we require directors to be notable by themselves, not for which TV station they work. Coverage in Farsi and English appears to be poor. Ping me if you find better sources. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 15 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 Maximilian Büsser#MB&F (2005 - present). Missvain (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MB&F[edit]

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

This is one of the worst cases of advertisement I have ever seen. Lots of corporate fluff and absolutely zero sources (but plenty of external links to company press releases). Fails WP:GNG (plenty of churnalism out there) and needs to be nuked from high orbit. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT. Redirect to Maximilian Büsser#MB&F (2005 - present)—I don't see that NCORP is met here. (t · c) buidhe 08:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have reverted to an older version which is not as much of a blatant ad. Now it's pretty much just a catalogue (but not a well sourced one). The company has received at least some coverage in major media, such as this long piece in the NYTimes. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That NYT article is about the founder, who already has an article here. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maximilian Büsser#MB&F (2005 - present) - The source Þjarkur has shown us is interesting, but doesn't seem like enough to me. However, I think redirecting to the founder is better than deletion. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads more like a catalog list of items for sale, not establishing notability Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditioned weak keep conditioned on keeping my latest changes to the article, where I removed some images and unsourced sections. The keep is weak because the interesting sources [20] [21] [22] do not seem to solidly establish notability of the company per NCORP. Mathias (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maximilian Büsser#MB&F (2005 - present), topic fails WP:NCORP in its own right but a redirect is appropriate. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new page seems indeed very commercial. As watch lover I can confirm MB&F is quite well known in the watch industry and has the legitimacy to be here. They are part of the Fondation de la Haute Horlogerie [23], won several prizes (5) at the Grand Prix d'Horlogerie de Genève [24]. The did lot of co-creations with other famous companies: L'Epée 1839 </ref> Caran d'Ache [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caran_d%27Ache_(entreprise) and the company has nice coverage in major media, such as [25] in Forbes. Why don't we just rewrite this page? Make it less catalogue and add more relevant information. watchlover_ch (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notable I'm also in the watch world and MB&F is a very well known contemporary watch brand. I've added 3 notability references to MB&F in first line from the Financial Times, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and have removed a few excess product images. I'm happy to work with watchlover_ch and do a noncommercial rewrite. IanS (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability One of Wikipedia’s examples of "substantial coverage" ^[1] in defining Notability is "A documentary film . . . " Maximilian Büsser#MB&F (2005 - present) as Founder and CEO of MB&F, and filmed in a MB&F boutique in Dubai, features in this Trailer for an independent feature-length documentary on time. MB&F and the brand's watches are widely discussed and Busser is the first person talking on screen (at 28 secs in) Keepers of Time: Trailer https://vimeo.com/user6668646 IanS (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats not a functional link. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:58, 15 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) 03:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hanson[edit]

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

Non-notable civil servant and businessperson. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet our notability guidelines for biographies; people creating such articles need to remember WP:NOTLINKEDIN; reads like a CV with mentions of his annual bonuses and unnecessary detail about his career Spiderone 12:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by creating editor - As a top-level politician in the final colonial years of British Hong Kong who oversaw the handover of Hong Kong, he regularly features in news, books and documentaries whenever the topic is about Colonial Hong Kong or Chris Patten's governance. A google search of his Chinese name "韓新" combined with "彭定康" (Chris Patten) yield significant Chinese-language results.Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Okay... so, if there are such "significant results", as you claim, why haven't you (as the creating editor) added them to the article? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've quickly searched under the Chinese names but I can't find anything that gives more than a passing mention to Hanson. Please remember that notability is not inherited from Chris Patten. Spiderone 13:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - See the SCMP news sources I added to the article. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was a press secretary 20 yrs ago, has gone back to a ho-hum business executive since. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I completely rewrote the article as I just discovered a full-length interview of him by South China Morning Post here. The content of the interview should justify his notability. Besides, the BBC 5-hour documentary The Last Governor also features him throughout. Editors voted before my rewrote at 16:09, 24 Nov 2020 please kindly have a second-look of the article. @Spiderone, Oaktree b, and DoubleGrazing: - Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to access the Ming Pao article. Is it available online? Spiderone 16:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ming Pao article is reprinted here. I would rather not recommend it given I found the much more relevant full-length interview by SCMP here. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SCMP ref is good, but it may not be enough. It's a pity that it's an interview, but the publication is/was solid, so we can probably assume they've done fact-checking before going to print. Just need a couple more RS refs now. On a side note, it's amusing that we can't narrow down the year of birth to anything closer than 20y, for someone with a claim of notability. :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As above, not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by creating editor The fact that he is responsible for the game-changing 1994 Hong Kong electoral reform and being remembered for the first official to bring political PR into the government made him an important figure in the political and journalistic history of Hong Kong. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Dimbleby, Jonathan (2018) [1997]. The Last Governor: Chris Patten and the Handover of Hong Kong. South Yorkshire: Pen and Sword Books. ISBN 978-1-52670-063-6. Retrieved 2020-11-29.
The book's index notes:
Hanson, Mike, 182, 184, 199, 202-3, 208, 283; appointment as Patten's spokesman, 91; on erosion of morale, 282; and Hurd's exchange of letters, 171, 172, 174
Davis, Leonard (1991). Hong Kong and the Asylum-Seekers from Vietnam. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-349-21703-8. Retrieved 2020-11-29.
The book's index notes:
Hanson, M., 36, 46, 53-5, 61, 65, 76, 161, 164, 167, 168, 174, 201, 202, 211, 217, 218, 219, 220, 223, 224
Gittings, Danny (1994-10-30). "I've trodden on a lot of toes". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-11-29. Retrieved 2020-11-29.
"All the Governor's men". South China Morning Post. 1997-06-10. Archived from the original on 2020-11-29. Retrieved 2020-11-29.
Hughes, Owen (1993-07-18). "Will Patten need to find a new voice?". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-11-29. Retrieved 2020-11-29.

Sources with quotes
Dimbleby, Jonathan (2018) [1997]. The Last Governor: Chris Patten and the Handover of Hong Kong. South Yorkshire: Pen and Sword Books. ISBN 978-1-52670-063-6. Retrieved 2020-11-29. The book's index notes: Hanson, Mike, 182, 184, 199, 202-3, 208, 283; appointment as Patten's spokesman, 91; on erosion of morale, 282; and Hurd's exchange of letters, 171, 172, 174 The book notes on page 91: The man he chose was an energetic and approachable government official on the GIS staff, Mike Hanson. Hanson had served as refugee coordinator during the critical period of 1989-91, when tension over the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong was at its peak, and his experience had honed his natural flair for public relations. At first the chief secretary, Sir David Ford, looked askance at Patten's decision to appoint someone else to the task which had hitherto been his responsibility, but he soon came to appreciate Hanson's ability to promote the governor's cause. Patten himself was to judge that Hanson hardly put a foot wrong. As information coordinator, Hanson joined Dinham and Llewellyn in the inner circle surrounding Patten. They became a devoted triumvirate which helped to refine his ideas, protect his flank and articulate is case both privately and publicly. The book notes on page 202: The governor's press secretary, Mike Hanson, one of his most loyal officials and himself a civil servant, was frustrated by the erosion of morale among his colleagues, some of whom complained to him that the governor had been too distracted by the conflict with China to address other important issues. They felt isolated from the policy-making process, and, they told Hanson, they no longer trusted Patten to act wisely in Hong Kong's interests. Hanson noticed that on a number of domestic issues they were becoming increasingly recalcitrant - one or two of them even failed to co-operate in the preparation of the governor's 1993 address to LegCo. Instead of identifying and exploring a range of alternative policy options, a few chose, in Hanson's words, to 'cut off the options in advance'. Davis, Leonard (1991). Hong Kong and the Asylum-Seekers from Vietnam. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-349-21703-8. Retrieved 2020-11-29. The book's index notes: Hanson, M., 36, 46, 53-5, 61, 65, 76, 161, 164, 167, 168, 174, 201, 202, 211, 217, 218, 219, 220, 223, 224 The book notes on pages 160–161: The Government has lacked talent. The necessary degree of vision has never emerged. A satisfactory outcome could not be found in the stolid, unimaginative, punitive responses of the Hong Kong Government, alternately pushed into action or encouraged to prevaricate by an embarrassed and equally impotent conservative administration on the other side of the world. The only exception to this lack of talent could possibly have been refugee co-ordinator Mike Hanson, who followed Ken Woodhouse and Nigel French. Regrettably, like his predecessors, Hanson had to remain in the shadow of lacklustre secretaries for security; and, just at the time when he might have been able to make a breakthrough in mid-1990 because of his personality and increasing experience in the task, he was transferred within Government service. Perhaps he was beginning to show too much understanding? Gittings, Danny (1994-10-30). "I've trodden on a lot of toes". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-11-29. Retrieved 2020-11-29. The article notes: The bad feeling towards Mr Hanson appears to have been aggravated by his status as a British civil servant on secondment to the Hong Kong Government since 1985, and his close identification with Mr Patten. Despite coming from the working-class background of a northern English coal-mining family, and having previously been a member of the opposition Labour Party, Mr Hanson has become a close friend of the former chairman of the Conservative Party who is now Governor of Hong Kong, and an ardent supporter of his moves to build democracy. "All the Governor's men". South China Morning Post. 1997-06-10. Archived from the original on 2020-11-29. Retrieved 2020-11-29. The article notes: But in those early years the team closest to Mr Patten were ... Mike Hanson, Mr McGlynn's predecessor as information co-ordinator; ... Mr Hanson seemed at first to revel in the notoriety of being spokesman for a governor branded a man of guilt by China's director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, Lu Ping. Soon, though, he was saying he didn't like being in such a prominent job and wanted to be a backroom boy again. They put him in the CPU under Mr Goodstadt and he didn't like the back room either. But Mr Hanson was not a Hong Kong civil servant: he had been seconded from the Home Office in London in the 1980s. Late last year, he headed off to New Zealand "and lived on a beach for six months", assured of a senior job in the British civil service. Hughes, Owen (1993-07-18). "Will Patten need to find a new voice?". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-11-29. Retrieved 2020-11-29. The article notes: WE HEAR Governor Chris Patten may lose his voice before long, amid growing talk of his public relations sidekick, spokesman Mike Hanson, moving to pastures new. Mr Hanson, who has been in his present post - officially entitled information co-ordinator - for two years, has never been entirely at ease with a job that involves public relations rather than policy, and is said not to be averse to a move.

Sources with quotes

Dimbleby, Jonathan (2018) [1997]. The Last Governor: Chris Patten and the Handover of Hong Kong. South Yorkshire: Pen and Sword Books. ISBN 978-1-52670-063-6. Retrieved 2020-11-29.
The book's index notes:
Hanson, Mike, 182, 184, 199, 202-3, 208, 283; appointment as Patten's spokesman, 91; on erosion of morale, 282; and Hurd's exchange of letters, 171, 172, 174

The book notes on page 91:
The man he chose was an energetic and approachable government official on the GIS staff, Mike Hanson. Hanson had served as refugee coordinator during the critical period of 1989-91, when tension over the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong was at its peak, and his experience had honed his natural flair for public relations. At first the chief secretary, Sir David Ford, looked askance at Patten's decision to appoint someone else to the task which had hitherto been his responsibility, but he soon came to appreciate Hanson's ability to promote the governor's cause. Patten himself was to judge that Hanson hardly put a foot wrong. As information coordinator, Hanson joined Dinham and Llewellyn in the inner circle surrounding Patten. They became a devoted triumvirate which helped to refine his ideas, protect his flank and articulate is case both privately and publicly.
The book notes on page 202:
The governor's press secretary, Mike Hanson, one of his most loyal officials and himself a civil servant, was frustrated by the erosion of morale among his colleagues, some of whom complained to him that the governor had been too distracted by the conflict with China to address other important issues. They felt isolated from the policy-making process, and, they told Hanson, they no longer trusted Patten to act wisely in Hong Kong's interests. Hanson noticed that on a number of domestic issues they were becoming increasingly recalcitrant - one or two of them even failed to co-operate in the preparation of the governor's 1993 address to LegCo. Instead of identifying and exploring a range of alternative policy options, a few chose, in Hanson's words, to 'cut off the options in advance'.
Davis, Leonard (1991). Hong Kong and the Asylum-Seekers from Vietnam. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-1-349-21703-8. Retrieved 2020-11-29.
The book's index notes:
Hanson, M., 36, 46, 53-5, 61, 65, 76, 161, 164, 167, 168, 174, 201, 202, 211, 217, 218, 219, 220, 223, 224

The book notes on pages 160–161:
The Government has lacked talent. The necessary degree of vision has never emerged. A satisfactory outcome could not be found in the stolid, unimaginative, punitive responses of the Hong Kong Government, alternately pushed into action or encouraged to prevaricate by an embarrassed and equally impotent conservative administration on the other side of the world. The only exception to this lack of talent could possibly have been refugee co-ordinator Mike Hanson, who followed Ken Woodhouse and Nigel French. Regrettably, like his predecessors, Hanson had to remain in the shadow of lacklustre secretaries for security; and, just at the time when he might have been able to make a breakthrough in mid-1990 because of his personality and increasing experience in the task, he was transferred within Government service. Perhaps he was beginning to show too much understanding?
Gittings, Danny (1994-10-30). "I've trodden on a lot of toes". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-11-29. Retrieved 2020-11-29.
The article notes:
The bad feeling towards Mr Hanson appears to have been aggravated by his status as a British civil servant on secondment to the Hong Kong Government since 1985, and his close identification with Mr Patten.
Despite coming from the working-class background of a northern English coal-mining family, and having previously been a member of the opposition Labour Party, Mr Hanson has become a close friend of the former chairman of the Conservative Party who is now Governor of Hong Kong, and an ardent supporter of his moves to build democracy.
"All the Governor's men". South China Morning Post. 1997-06-10. Archived from the original on 2020-11-29. Retrieved 2020-11-29.
The article notes:
But in those early years the team closest to Mr Patten were ... Mike Hanson, Mr McGlynn's predecessor as information co-ordinator; ...
Mr Hanson seemed at first to revel in the notoriety of being spokesman for a governor branded a man of guilt by China's director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, Lu Ping. Soon, though, he was saying he didn't like being in such a prominent job and wanted to be a backroom boy again. They put him in the CPU under Mr Goodstadt and he didn't like the back room either. But Mr Hanson was not a Hong Kong civil servant: he had been seconded from the Home Office in London in the 1980s. Late last year, he headed off to New Zealand "and lived on a beach for six months", assured of a senior job in the British civil service.
Hughes, Owen (1993-07-18). "Will Patten need to find a new voice?". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-11-29. Retrieved 2020-11-29.
The article notes:
WE HEAR Governor Chris Patten may lose his voice before long, amid growing talk of his public relations sidekick, spokesman Mike Hanson, moving to pastures new.
Mr Hanson, who has been in his present post - officially entitled information co-ordinator - for two years, has never been entirely at ease with a job that involves public relations rather than policy, and is said not to be averse to a move.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Michael Hanson to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Cunard, and he is a major political figure as the head of political public relations of the British Hong Kong government. However, I think the multiple news articles fulfill WP:BASIC: "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." VocalIndia (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard has ably demonstrated notability per WP:NEXIST. Policy WP:ATD applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have said, subsequent edits in November 2020 have added independent references which demonstrate notability. Threedotshk (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The South China Morning Post sources look good to me. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:30, 14 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 Ashley Ellyllon#Orbs. Missvain (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orbs (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Emeraude (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Band has two notable members, four reliable sources and an album article that is decently sourced which can be merged into the band article. If the article cannot be kept, it can be redirected with history to one of the two notable band members that do have articles, probably Ashley Ellyllon. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bueller?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ashley Ellyllon#Orbs. Fails WP:NBAND. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:53, 9 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) 20:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi A Hydropower Station[edit]

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

No indication of notability, reverted redirect with no explanation or attempt at improvement. Will be adding several others to this AfD. Not every power station is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False claim by User:onel5969 stating reverted redirect with no explanation or attempt at improvement. This user had blanked and redirected multiple articles with same reasons (stating undersourced?). The right path is to tag such artciles undersourced instead of blanking the page (possible vandalism) and putting a redirect. Anyway, the revert was done clearly stating the reason. See e.g. [26] or [27]. Obviously, i did not type same thing in each of his blanking. nirmal (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to List of power stations in Nepal - none of them warrant their own article and what little info they contain could easily be summarised in that list Spiderone 11:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It takes considerable effort to maintain a list, while, an article attracts editors with potential knowledge faster not only to improve/add information but also other sides such as copy-edit. For the time, being I have added reference in the main articles (which are in Nepali, they can get a lead by translating perhaps)nirmal (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:JUNK not notable, has no redeeming qualities. We don't include random hydropower station just as we wouldn't include every stop light in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 16:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the notable power stations in this list. Power stations usually are notable, because construction is expensive, disruptive and controversial. They get a fair amount of news coverage. I see no evidence that the nominator has searched Nepali sources for coverage. Certainly Rudi-A is notable, and even has English sources like Ramji Rana (4 May 2018), "Rudi 'A' hydroproject to generate electricity from mid-July", The Himalayan Times. Can the nominator identify any of these power stations for which a search does not find any evidence of notability? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur—it seems fairly clear that the nominator did not do a proper WP:BEFORE, making this a bad nomination. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 09:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave the nominator out of this and focus on the issue of whether the articles should be kept or not? The nominator is perfectly at liberty to challenge the articles without being pilloried. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All . I created all of those articles. It seems the nominator did not attempt to search in Nepali. This is not the first time though. Based on my experience with wiki-deletion nominators, I had put the Nepali text in the article page hoping that anyone with the reasonable common sense first search in both English and native language. But it did not happen (again). Second, it seems like some kind of revenge by User:onel5969. This user had redirected all the articles to the list. Well, I am well aware of that list because I added/updated the information in the list recently and few times before. I reverted his edit giving him sufficient reason: (a) these articles are WP:STUB and (b) contains some additional information not available in the list like coordinates and design parameters. Though not related to this topic, I want to share one funny fact. Few months ago, there was another nominator who tied to delete a list because he thought it did not contain notable articles. So its kind of vicious cycle of chicken and egg. nirmal (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update- I added additional references to all the articles (including those in Nepali language). I hope the nominator will be active enough to open the links and translate and decide if it feels like WP:JUNK or find other ways to delete them (lol!). nirmal (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suspect a good dose of COI in these creations, but AGF has me shelving that product of a nasty, suspicious mind. If List of power stations in England is a thing (and it is) and Barnes power station, decommissioned in 1959, has a page (and it does), then these Nepalese power stations are notable enough for inclusion. Strange as that may seem. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any conflict of interest. The power plants are run by various different private companies and have long term contracts with the state power company. A WP article has no commercial value to them. I have pumped up some of the articles. There are plenty of sources. The plants cost a few million dollars to build, suffer from floods, earthquakes, landslides, bureaucratic delays etc., block fish migration, destroy farmland, divert irrigration water and so on. Notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just voted keep, so there's very little point indeed in telling me they're notable, is there? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise and COI are two different things. Happy editing!! nirmal (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nominator said "no explanation or attempt at improvement"; there has been quite a bit of improvement since then. Keep per WP:HEY. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All have a considerable amount of information and notability. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:03, 9 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 Tortured Souls. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mongroid[edit]

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

Not a notable character. Dronebogus (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wow, that's bad. Unreferenced WP:SUBSTUB with no indication of real world significance, fails WP:NFICTION and GNG. Please consider WP:PROD for such articles first, however, I doubt this would be object to as it is not related to any big franchise. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in shock, this unsourced article on a fictional character got nominated for deletion after existing for less than 12 years. I thought our unspoken rule was we let unsourced fancruft sit around for at least a dozen years before doing anything about it. It is high time the system changes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a shred of notability Spiderone 15:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tortured Souls - The individual character fails the WP:GNG on its own, but as it is already covered on the main article for the franchise (which a quick search shows does pass the WP:GNG, Redirecting there should work. This seems uncontroversial enough that it could have probably been WP:BOLDly done without going through an AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma. If there is a valid alternative to deletion at a suitable target that already exists, WP:ATD-R should be used. -2pou (talk) 20:27, 14 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 Tortured Souls. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scythe-Meister[edit]

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

Not a notable character. Dronebogus (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wow, that's bad. Unreferenced WP:SUBSTUB with no indication of real world significance, fails WP:NFICTION and GNG. Please consider WP:PROD for such articles first, however, I doubt this would be objected to as it is not related to any big franchises. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tortured Souls#Characters: Not independently notable, but plausible search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb is not reliable, we need to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tortured Souls - The individual character fails the WP:GNG on its own, but as it is already covered on the main article for the franchise (which a quick search shows does pass the WP:GNG, Redirecting there should work. This seems uncontroversial enough that it could have probably been WP:BOLDly done without going through an AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Joseph2302 and Rorshacma—indifferent on the anchor/section. If there is a valid alternative to deletion at a suitable target that already exists, WP:ATD-R should be used. -2pou (talk) 19:50, 14 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 Tortured Souls. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucidique[edit]

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

Not a notable character. Dronebogus (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wow, that's bad. Unreferenced WP:SUBSTUB with no indication of real world significance, fails WP:NFICTION and GNG. Please consider WP:PROD for such articles first, however, I doubt this would be objected to as it is not related to any big franchises. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tortured Souls#Characters: Not independently notable, but plausible search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a shred of notability Spiderone 15:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tortured Souls - The individual character fails the WP:GNG on its own, but as it is already covered on the main article for the franchise (which a quick search shows does pass the WP:GNG, Redirecting there should work. This seems uncontroversial enough that it could have probably been WP:BOLDly done without going through an AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Joseph2302 and Rorshacma—indifferent on the anchor/section. If there is a valid alternative to deletion at a suitable target that already exists, WP:ATD-R should be used. --2pou (talk) 19:48, 14 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 Tortured Souls. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venal Anatomica[edit]

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

Not a notable character. Dronebogus (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wow, that's bad. Unreferenced (marketing ads don't count) WP:SUBSTUB with no indication of real world significance, fails WP:NFICTION and GNG. Please consider WP:PROD for such articles first, however, I doubt this would be objected to as it is not related to any big franchises. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tortured Souls#Characters: Not independently notable, but plausible search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a shred of notability Spiderone 15:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tortured Souls - The individual character fails the WP:GNG on its own, but as it is already covered on the main article for the franchise (which a quick search shows does pass the WP:GNG, Redirecting there should work. This seems uncontroversial enough that it could have probably been WP:BOLDly done without going through an AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Joseph2302 and Rorshacma—indifferent on the anchor/section. If there is a valid alternative to deletion at a suitable target that already exists, WP:ATD-R should be used. -2pou (talk) 20:31, 14 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 Tortured Souls. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talisac[edit]

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

Not a notable character. Dronebogus (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the other four unnotable toys below. They should have been bundled together. The associated template should be jettisoned too. No reliable sources for any of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wow, that's bad. Mostly unreferenced WP:SUBSTUB with no indication of real world significance, fails WP:NFICTION and GNG. Please consider WP:PROD for such articles first, however, I doubt this would be objected to as it is not related to any big franchises. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tortured Souls - The individual character fails the WP:GNG on its own, but as it is already covered on the main article for the franchise (which a quick search shows does pass the WP:GNG, Redirecting there should work. This seems uncontroversial enough that it could have probably been WP:BOLDly done without going through an AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma. If there is a valid alternative to deletion at a suitable target that already exists, WP:ATD-R should be used. -2pou (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denco, California[edit]

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

Another one of those entries only in Durham. Not on topos, no GNIS entry, nothing on newspapers.com except for the name of some company, not in Gudde's California place names book. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-producer negligently misrepresented the source: Durham says under the entry for Colusa: "California Division of Highways' (1934) map shows a place called Denco located 4 miles north of Colusa along Sacramento Northern Railroad", not that it is a notable community or settlement, as is obvious on the maps. Reywas92^Talk 00:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I find nothing along the line to which this name could be attached. Mangoe (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. Note to closer: I seriously suggest not relisting these California AFDs unless someone finds a good keep rationale as there's thousands of them coming down the pipe. Someone spent literally years creating tons of these articles and they all have basically the same problem: they rely on bad GNIS data and at most one other source (Durham) which they typically mischaracterise (e.g., Durham will say there was a single building at a location in 1870-something and the author wrote an article about a ghost-town at that site). A "locality" in Durham does not mean an inhabited place. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Computer Games Association[edit]

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

This page does not appear to meet the WP:GNG for an organization, as I can find virtually no mention of it in reliable sources other than listings in directories. While it does publish a journal, that also does not appear notable or be referenced in any secondary sources outside of directory listings (I will be nominating that for deletion as well). I am pretty new to AfD, and so I do not believe there are any subject-specific notability guidelines that would apply. Please let me know if I should have submitted this differently. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The icga.org site has a "Tournaments" link to http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/event.php?idT=44 but if you go to archive.org for that link and choose 2019, you get forwarded to http://web.archive.org/web/20190418094525/https://www.game-ai-forum.org/icga-tournaments/ So icga.org has simply not updated it's web site yet. The French website that was forwarding requests has been down for months. I have sent an email to webmaster@icga.org to this effect.--Sa57arc (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this link to a recent World Computer Chess Championship, which of course mentions the organizing entity. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources I could find were similarly trivial mentions that don't seem to satisfy the "significant coverage" of WP:GNG. There is already a page for the "World Computer Chess Championship" if that is notable, but how would that make the organizing entity notable? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant independent coverage. Those resources available in the article or visible in searches that are significant are directly connected and the independent mentions are only brief mentions or only in passing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best sources I could find in a search were something like [28]—brief mentions in reliable sources that don't meet the significance criteria. I couldn't find stories about the ICGA specifically versus just being quoted, etc. Even looking for its previous incarnation at the ICCA basically brings up "this existed" in passing mentions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Chompy Ace 07:45, 13 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. Withdrawn Missvain (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ICGA Journal[edit]

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

This journal does not appear to meet the WP:GNG, as I cannot find it mentioned in secondary sources outside of directory listings. I am pretty new to AfD, and so I do not believe there are any subject-specific notability guidelines that would apply, but please let me know if I should have nominated this differently or have missed something. Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs re-writing following our journal article writing guide, but it is listed in the Science Citation Index Expanded and (since it's listed in SCImago) Scopus, so it meets WP:NJournals (see here). --Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as argued by Randykitty. Note that there is a related AfD for its publisher, the International Computer Games Association. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not understanding the academic journal notability guideline better, and thank you for linking to the organization's AfD as well. Would it be appropriate for me to withdraw this AfD nomination at this point? Any other advice on how I did the AfD would also be appreciated. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lurline, California[edit]

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

Having trouble verifying what this place was. Topos show 2 or 3 buildings along the Colusa and Lake Railroad that disappear around the time the tracks did. There's a Lurline Creek in the area, as well as a Lurline Avenue. Newspapers.com and Gbooks bring up a bunch of hits for the road and a yacht, as well as one reference to the Lurline Dairy and one reference to a warehouse at Lurline. Since I'm unable to find anything explaining what exactly this was, I'm hesitant to say that this passes WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is in Durham even though it's not cited. Durham says "locality: nearly 7 miles northwest of Williams along Colusa and Lake Railroad", not that it is a notable community or settlement, as is obvious on the maps. Reywas92^Talk 00:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete All signs point to a rail spot which is long gone. Mangoe (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. Note to closer: I seriously suggest not relisting these California AFDs unless someone finds a good keep rationale as there's thousands of them coming down the pipe. Someone spent literally years creating tons of these articles and they all have basically the same problem: they rely on bad GNIS data and at most one other source (Durham) which they typically mischaracterise (e.g., Durham will say there was a single building at a location in 1870-something and the author wrote an article about a ghost-town at that site). A "locality" in Durham does not mean an inhabited place. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 9 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) 20:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oggar[edit]

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

This was previously (in 2012) PRODed by User:DreamGuy with rationale "No evidence of enough notability to deserve Wikipedia article instead of merely being mentioned on another page somewhere, complete lack of reliable sources which per WP:RS means the whole thing should be deleted". It was deprodded and sources have been added since, but sadly, 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, since the article is still WP:ALLPLOT and there is nothing I see suggesting this character has been analyzed or has any reception outside of being the usual n-th something in a low-quality plut summarizing listicle here or there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 2 December 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} 06:24, 2 December 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} 06:24, 2 December 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} 06:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching for sources turns up a few brief mentions here and there, but nothing close to substantial enough to pass the WP:GNG. It should be noted, though, that there have been several other fictional characters named "Oggar" that some sources popped up for, but they appear to be completely unrelated to the Fawcett/DC character. If anyone can suggest a reasonable Redirect for this, I would likely be fine with that, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shazam (wizard)#Origin where he is covered when discussing Shazamo as the original name. It has about as much detail as is needed from the current article based on the character alone. It is a plausible search term, so this is a valid alternative to deletion per WP:ATD-R. He apparently starred in his own serial comic, which wouldn't quite fit into the Shazam (wizard) article, but there isn't much info on it that I can see, so that shouldn't be an issue. If there are concerns over confusion with other characters, the redirect could be moved to Oggar (DC comics). -2pou (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is documented in detail in numerous sources including All in Color for a Dime; 500 Comicbook Villains; Crawford's Encyclopedia of Comic Books; The Fawcett Companion; &c. And, as there were other notable characters with this name, documented in sources such as The Legion of Regrettable Supervillains, we need disambiguation rather than deletion. Our policies WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay per the information provided by @Andrew Davidson:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge As shown above, there are a number of secondary sources treating the character. I cannot see enough to be sure how much analysis is contained in them, but e.g. The Fawcett Companion gives us an evaluation of the Oggar serial. There is also the publication history as real-world content. So if it is decided that there is not enough evidence for a stand-alone article, there definitely is content to WP:PRESERVE. Daranios (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Fawcett Companion coverage is short but very good real-world development info. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:38, 10 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger (DC Comics)[edit]

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

This was recently PRODed by User:TTN with rationale "Fails WP:GNG" and the PROD was removed by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale. I concur with TTN that 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. This is yet another WP:ALLPLOT failure. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 2 December 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} 08:04, 2 December 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} 08:04, 2 December 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} 08:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ALLPLOT is an essay and so has "no official status" and does "not speak for the Wikipedia community". And, it is quite inappropriate as the lead of the current version contains no plot at all – just details of the authors, publishers and publication history. So, it is apparent that the nomination is not based upon a reading of the article or policy. Our actual policy, WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolute failure of WP:GNG. While ALLPLOT is an essay, it is based on the concept of WP:PLOT, which is a policy. There is nowhere near enough in-depth sourcing to show this character passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Onel5969: Per WP:ATD and WP:HANDLE, just citing a policy isn't good enough. To justify deletion, you need to cite a legitimate criteria for deletion. "But the article is all plot!" and "But the sources in the article suck!" aren't good enough on their own. In fact, there's really no reason to say "It's all plot" anyway because it's just another way of saying "The article is poorly written!!!" That issue is solved with rewrites, unless the topic genuinely isn't notable (which needs to be justified beyond complaining about surmountable problems, per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). Dark knight 2149 02:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Darkknight2149, uh, no. Neither of those policies state what you claim. Citing GNG is citing a criteria for deletion. And Wikipedia:Using deletion as cleanup is just as valid an essay. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Onel5969: Yeah, no. WP:GNG is part of WP:Notability just like WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN.

Per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."

Per WP:NEXIST, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet."

"But the article is all plot!" and "But the sourcing in the article is bad!" are both surmountable problems that have nothing to do with WP:GNG. Likewise WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP has its roots in WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, which are both policies. Dark knight 2149 18:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darkknight2149, neither or which is what you said originally. But you probably knew that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Judomaster, where he is already covered pretty sufficiently. Andrew's Keep argument appears to be based entirely on the fact that the nom mentioned WP:ALLPLOT, however as the nom also mentioned the character failing the WP:GNG, which based on searches he certainly does, that is not really much of an argument for keeping. There is very little coverage on the character in reliable, secondary sources - even books on the very specific topic of the All-Star Squadron, such as The All-Star Companion An Overview of the Justice Society of America and Related Comic Series, 1935-1989. Volume two barely mentions him, and only in the context of him being the sidekick of Judomaster. As there is pretty much no way this character passes the WP:GNG on his own, Redirecting to Judomaster is about the best that can be done. Rorshacma (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several elements in my keep. I rebut the argument of the nomination and I cite WP:ATD which, as a policy, is stronger than guidelines and essays. It is manifest that there are sensible alternatives to deletion such as improvement of the page, because I have done so. The worst case would be merger to Judomaster as the character in question is their sidekick. Such merger is done by keeping the page not by deleting it. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You keep ignoring the mention of GNG and that it is also a policy. Also, there is no referenced content that is worth merging - there is no reception section here at all. Why should the Judomaster character contain any content from this one? Where would it fit? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG per One15969. It is a disambiguation and therefore doesn't require a redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Performed a source check and came up with nothing. Dark knight 2149 03:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ALLPLOT relates to the content of an article, not sourcing, and as such, should not play any part in an AFD discussion, unless there is a serious belief in WP:TNT. That said, I do agree that this character fails WP:GNG, a quick WP:BEFORE shows nothing useful, and therefor, should be deleted. As for WP:ATD, the title is somewhat generic, and could just as easily refer to the spiral agent, or even Mister Tawky Tawny, so merge or redirect seem not to be valid. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, WP:BEFORE shows nothing, no sources have been found with SIGCOV, and article is what Wikipedia is not. // Timothy :: talk 11:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of minor DC Comics characters. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:ALLPLOT too in the same sense: there aren't third party sources that discuss this with any meaningful out-of-universe context. Either way it comes back to a lack of sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:11, 15 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, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Axente[edit]

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

The sources fall into four main categories:

Company bios: [29], [30]
Those “one hundred relevant people” type lists: [31], [32], [33], [34]
- A report on one of those lists: in line with the Romanian press’s love for the “Romanians who make good” type stories
Passing press quotes: [35], [36], [37]
Reports where the subject is 1 of 10 contributors or 1 of 17
No mention here

While the subject is indeed an expert in a niche field, I submit the sources do not rise to the “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject” standard set by WP:BASIC. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has been somewhat improved since I first saw it, but the fundamental problem remains: the article desperately tries to make the subject seem more 'important' than she probably is, and does that by stretching the sources beyond breaking point. The article in The Guardian appears in a column sponsored by her employer. The expert contribution to the UNESCO report means that she was one of 17 people who provided comments. Her alleged inclusion on the (barely notable) 'most influential' list turns out to be merely long-list nomination for inclusion. That sort of thing, throughout. (It has done well to survive a speedy request and PROD, though, I'll give it that much.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article on a person who is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She’s a standard employee at a big 4 firm. Not even a leader at the respective firm. What is this nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:F08:8201:689A:593D:2353:AAB5 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sourcing is found (ping me if so). The current sourcing is junk-like, and none of it appears to be in-depth. 04:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Art Cafè[edit]

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

A longstanding primary-sourced article about a project, carrying a notability query since 2012. An equivalent article was deleted from the Italian Wikipedia as promotional in 2012. Notability is not inherited from people involved in associated events or from the curator or participants in the EAC events. Searches find occasional event listings such as that which I added as a reference (and this one which uses the same words as the article), but I am not finding the level of coverage needed to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing to suggest this project still exists, the site is dead -- it doesn't become less notable from being defunct, but the probability of future coverage coming into play seems nonexistent. The coverage that exists now (in the article and elsewhere) is... lacking. Not really sure how it meets GNG. jp×g 07:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while notability is not temporary, this project doesn't ever seem to have gained any sense of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:06, 16 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, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1/24 Social Movement[edit]

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

No indication of importance or notability Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless one or both existing non-English sources are determined to be reliable and independent and/or independent, reliable sources are added, AND between the independent, reliable sources, it significant coverage is shown. If the non-English sources are reliable and independent, a partial translation and summary on the talk page will help a lot in determining if there is significant coverage. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though agree with davidwr idea.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 00:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. If it is not deleted, it should be drafted; in its current state the article isn't clear about what the subject actually is/does, "This is a volunteer organization, dedicate to serve society." could be anything. // Timothy :: talk 19:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There is nothing here that could be construed as demonstrating notability, and virtually no information about the subject other than its existence. So what? I can't even say it "fails" GNG, since it never even tries to pass. jp×g 06:07, 14 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) 03:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Robles[edit]

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

Fails GNG, lack of independent, reliable sources found. Deproded without any valid explanation or sources that would satisfy notability requirements. (t · c) buidhe 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Once again, I shouldn't have to explain that a prod can be removed for any reason or none (i.e. there is no "valid explanation" or indeed invalid explanation, since removal of a prod is an absolute right of any editor) and that prodding is for wholly uncontroversial deletion. This clearly is not and needs wider discussion. Prodding is emphatically not a way to simply avoid the AfD process for articles that may have value. Although it is sadly increasingly used in this way and editors who prod and have their prods removed increasingly seem to express sour grapes that they have to "waste their valuable time" taking the article to AfD, that is not the function of prodding. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that? What I said is that you shouldn't deprod an article without a reason why it would be kept. If there is none, then it *is* a waste of editors' time, but that's on you, not me. (t · c) buidhe 01:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And which particular section of WP:PROD are you citing here? There is nothing wrong with opening up a deletion to wider discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has only 1 citation that isn't his own work, and an citations needed template from 11 years ago. Shocked that it wasn't deleted already.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that John Robles is still the only American with full permanent political asylum in the Russian Federation (something that not even Edward Snowden could achieve), has had asylum for 13 years and has been battling the censorship of his journalistic work, it would be a historical disservice to delete this page.

Delete - can't find enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:04, 16 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) 03:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Micro landschaft[edit]

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

The term does not seem to be commonly used, and if it's used at all, it certainly doesn't seem to be notable. The only references used in the article are web searches, and one of them (ref 4 at the time of writing this) does not seem to use the term at all. Noahfgodard (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable concept, neither in English, nor in German. It's quite telling that after two filter adjustments, Google asked me for a reCAPTCHA because of my "odd" search. –Austronesier (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not sufficient to maintain the article and it doesn't seem to exist in notable sources. RedOak350 (talk) 22:33, 12 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) 03:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn Dias[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable actress - Found this, this and this however that's the best I've found however those are the best I've found, IMHO TOOSOON for an article, Fails NACTOR and GNG, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability Kolma8 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I have very less experience regarding notability discussions. Please excuse my lack of knowledge, but isn't playing a major role in a very famous film like Inside Out and winning a Young Artist Award enough for notability? Che (Talkin' Bout A Revolution) 10:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't believe it is, WP:NACTOR states:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

1 - The wording says "has had significant roles" ie not "had a significant role" and given Inside Out is the only notable programe she's been in I would say she would fail #1

2 - No idea on this

3 - You could argue the award is a contribution to that field of entertainment but personally I wouldn't say it's enough - If she'd won a second award then sure but to me one award isn't enough.

So personally I would say she fails NACTOR for those reasons, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Appreciated. Che (Talkin' Bout A Revolution) 16:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have always taken the actor notability guidelines to relate to live action roles, when we are talking about voice roles I always figure we need more there. In this case it is only one role, and that is it. Especially since it is just a voice role, it does not given her the recognition she might have gotten if she had had a significant role in a live action work. I am somewhat remined of the deletion discussions on Auliʻi Cravalho. However Cravalho has now had at least one other significant role (maybe 2 or 3 others, I am not sure if the role she had in a production of the Little Mermaid was significant, well she had the lead role, I am just not sure if a Live Concert TV special is really a significant production). Actually come to think of it, Carvalho at some point was certified notable as a singer, not an actress. With singers you really can get to be notable with just one song, because we have ways to measure song impact, also because at least in some cases there is one person singing the song, it is harder to become notable with one role, although if someone truly had a notable production where there role was basically the only one, we might consider it. Dias is not yet notable, and the fact that she has a bunch of insiginificant roles before and after her one significant one makes me not hold my breath on her becoming notable, she may, but it will take some future change that is not gauranteed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dias is 21, so there are lots of changes for her to make it big in the future. We could list huge numbers of actresses who did not get a significant role until they were at least 23. However we can also list huge number of child and teenaged actresses who never had any significant roles as an adult. She is not notable yet, that may change though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My take on notability and having an article too early is exactly the opposite of what I see above. I love having the opportunity to read a piece on an up-and-coming young actress, and would much prefer that situation over waiting until she has in fact established herself more.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be disresctful but "love having the opportunity to read a piece on an up-and-coming young actress" doesn't help with the notability of the subject. The actress at present is non-notable and as such it would make more sense to delete and recreate at a further time when notablity is more established. –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 16 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) 03:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Droke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable actress, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Potentially meets NACTOR however Fails GNG, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing more than bit parts. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Kolma8 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. No reliable sources found during a Google search, only the standard unreliable sites like databases and social media. Reliable looking sites did not return anything about her. As I see, she has entries on other WPs as well, but the sourcing isn't great in any of them, either. In fact, they are horrible, as most of the pages are sourced solely to IMDb, or IMDb and another database. The Russian article has the most sources of them all, but the presented sources there are all promo/gossip stuff. Some of them contain no sources whatsoever. Isn't it WP policy, be in any language, that articles on living people must be well-sourced? Yeah, actually, it is. But anyways, this is the English version, and she is not notable. The article was nominated for deletion back in 2011, but survived. Notability hasn't been proven ever since. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If a search is done for News, there are quite a few reliable sources on this actress. The funny thing is that the main reasons I found for the notability aren't really discussed in the article, so the piece does need some work, but multiple sources could be added if Samantha Droke's history on the Disney Channel and her relationships with Vanessa Hudgens and Ashley Tisdale, amongst others, would be discussed in more detail.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My searches on Google News are bringing up "Just Jared" which isn't a reliable source and tabloids....–Davey2010^Talk 21:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - although she's had a lot of roles, I'm underwhelmed with the sourcing. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is poorly written and sourced. I hate to see these types of pages get deleted, so I am gonna improve it a little. There are a lot more sources such as Deadline, MTV, People, etc and subject meets WP:GNG. She also has been in several well known Tv Series, medium, CSI, Gilmoure Girls and Eastweak (3 episodes). Peter303x (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I wouldn't say Deadline and MTV were enough to establish notability here, She's been in the TV/Film industry since 2005 and has won 2 awards yet there's nothing online confirming any of this. I would expect better for someone who's been in said idustry for 10-15 years. –Davey2010^Talk 21:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this were a newer actor, I would say this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but she's been around a while. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingbright[edit]

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

No evidence this is a notable company. Sourcing appears limited to press releases and others that don't meet WP:ORG. StarM 21:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete re: doesn't meet WP:ORG Kolma8 (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are few and thin, include press release and self-published websites. Clearly fails WP:ORG.Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Clicking on Google books, I see dozens of sources. I'm not sure that qualifies for WP:SIGCOV. I'll leave that to the experts. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Bearian of the ones whose content were available they appeared limited to directories and in two cases, figures showing their product(s), but no actual coverage. StarM 00:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am persuaded by Missvain. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks support for notability. Duncan079 (talk) 16:43, 13 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) 03:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bálint Varga[edit]

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

It is rather self-promotional content, created by one person, who seems to be closely related to the topic. He/she also created and dramatically expanded a few articles related to the subject of this article (his audiobook), that lacking any notability. Essentially, this article does not meet any of: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS). Recommend deletion.Kolma8 (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Saddened to make this decision since I am Hungarian myself, but the presented sources do not establish notability, as they are all PR stuff and an also promotional page in Blikk, a Hungarian tabloid. I couldn't find anything better during a google search. He doesn't even has a huwiki page (although I know that is not a reason + unfortunately, huwiki does not have articles on a lot of topics). It doesn't help that the name "Bálint Varga" (or "Varga Bálint") is an extremely common name in Hungary, so of course, stuff about other people named as such also popped up. The description at the article creation also indicates COI issues, although I am not exactly sure about that, as the creator edited a lot of pages, not just this one. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sigh. Can't we leave articles unchanged that are nominated for AfD? I recognize that what was removed was unsourced - but since many times that is exactly what prompts the AfD in the first place, I would very much like to have the article left the way it is and have it evaluated by the community, including the unsourced material. Maybe the AfD review would have caused someone to find the sources - I see it happening quite often....--Concertmusic (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:13, 16 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) 03:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Jury (1976 film)[edit]

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

A review from Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide is considered “insufficient to fully establish notability” per WP:NFSOURCES. In addition, the article needs two or more reviews to be eligible per WP:NFO. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking significant coverage; as noted above. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 16:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find any additional sources on "Google Books", "Newspapers.com", or the "Internet Archives". Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Chromatic Games. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agapitus Lye[edit]

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

Non-notable Founder/CEO. fails WP:GNG. He has founded a notable company but nothing more that he has on his own name. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of being notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 08:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chromatic Games, which mentions this topic by name. In general, if a title would make for a useful search phrase, please pursue such alternatives to deletion before nominating an article for deletion. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 20:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Disagree that we should have redirects for the name of every company's founder. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chromatic Games. The info could live as a section in that article and be preserved.--Concertmusic (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chromatic Games, not individually notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chromatic Games, not individually notable but a valid search term. --Walrus Ji (talk) 10:33, 11 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) 03:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gepford, California[edit]

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

According to the topos, a siding on a long-abandoned ATSF line. There's nothing there now beyond a couple of farms. Mangoe (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-producer negligently misrepresented the source: Durham says "locality: 7 miles north-northwest of Lemoore along ATSE Railroad", not that it is a notable community or settlement, as is obvious on the topo map. Reywas92^Talk 03:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. Note to closer: I seriously suggest not relisting these California AFDs unless someone finds a good keep rationale as there's thousands of them coming down the pipe. Someone spent literally years creating tons of these articles and they all have basically the same problem: they rely on bad GNIS data and at most one other source (Durham) which they typically mischaracterise (e.g., Durham will say there was a single building at a location in 1870-something and the author wrote an article about a ghost-town at that site). A "locality" in Durham does not mean an inhabited place. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 15:08, 16 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) 03:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cimarron, California[edit]

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

All topos from the mid-1950s on show a building next to this siding, and the aerials show more: an initially small complex of buildings which around 2000 morphs into what owner Leprino Foods describes as "one of the largest cheese manufacturing facilities in the world". The city has crept up to the edge of this mammoth plant (and I believe it is within the city limits) but initially it was nothing more than a passing siding in the midst of the farms which still blanket the area. Mangoe (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-producer negligently misrepresented the source: Durham says "locality: 1.5 miles west of LEmoors along Southern Pacific Railroad", not that it is a notable community or settlement, as is obvious on the topo map. Reywas92^Talk 03:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Part of a mass article-creation campaign based on use of bad sources, and misstating what good sources say. Note to closer: I seriously suggest not relisting these California AFDs unless someone finds a good keep rationale as there's thousands of them coming down the pipe. Someone spent literally years creating tons of these articles and they all have basically the same problem: they rely on bad GNIS data and at most one other source (Durham) which they typically mischaracterise (e.g., Durham will say there was a single building at a location in 1870-something and the author wrote an article about a ghost-town at that site). A "locality" in Durham does not mean an inhabited place. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and FOARP, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 15:21, 16 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) 03:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lateranus family[edit]

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

I don't think a distinct, WP:NOTABLE ancient Roman family of this name even existed. 4 of its 6 supposed members were not named 'Lateranus' at all, but instead 'Plautius'. The remaining two – Sextius Lateranus and Plautius Lateranus – were probably not related, since no reliable source attests any connection, their actual hereditary/family names (Sextius and Plautius) differ, and they lived 400 years apart. The five people named 'Plautius' did, incidentally, comprise a distinct family. I do not consider the article's main source, which focuses only on the namesake Lateran Basilica and not the subject matter, to be a WP:RS. The creator of the article is banned. Avilich (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A confusing article with little to no relation to the ancient sources. Even if it would be correctly reworked to be a disambiguate of people sharing the cognomen Lateranus consisting of members from the Sextius and Plautius gentes it would fail in this essence, as Avilich points out, only two members on this list actually has the cognomen of Lateranus. (Not sure i added this text in the correct place as this is my first time commenting on an AfD) CutieyKing (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm baffled by this article. On the one hand, the fact a number of Romans shared the same cognomen does not prove they are related. On the other, the concept that there was a family named Lateranus is not some random idea invented by an editor, but originated with an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia. By this, I am not arguing that there was a family -- I don't believe there was, & I've grown suspicious about some of the material in the CE -- but that someone once thought there was one. (I thought "Lateran" was the name of a portion of or a landmark in Rome.) This needs more research. Nevertheless, I don't know if my ambivalence is enough to keep this article. -- llywrch (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a little investigation failed to show the existence of a "Lateran Hill" at Rome in antiquity, although it seems to have been inferred, since that search term is a redirect to "Lateran". It may be that the "hill" owes its existence to the construction of the Lateran Palace and the similarly-named adjoining buildings: according to Platner & Ashby's Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, the Domus Laterani underlies the modern church, and gives it its name. The house was presented by Septimius Severus to Titus Sextius Lateranus, consul in AD 197, and the article supposes that it might have been the home of Plautius Lateranus, whom Nero had put to death. If so, then the house probably took its name from Plautius, not Sextius, which would normally suggest to me that Sextius acquired the surname from his house—although this seems to be disproved by the fact that his father was Titus Sextius Lateranus, the consul of AD 154, and his great-grandfather Titus Sextius Lateranus, consul in AD 94; and besides, given his long, extended nomenclature, it seems unlikely he would have needed to add a surname based on his residence, or that anyone else would have needed to bestow it on him in order to distinguish him from other members of his family.

If the house was indeed that of Plautius Lateranus, then it could be that these Sextii Laterani were descended from the Plautii Laterani, in which case Septimius Severus was "restoring" them to their patrimony. On the other hand, they could have obtained the name from living in the same neighbourhood, if that were the original reason for the surname. The imperial Sextii Laterani may well have intended the name to allude to Lucius Sextius Lateranus, since it was fashionable in the late Republic and Imperial times for families to revive ancient and illustrious surnames of their respective gentes, whether or not they could prove descent from the individuals concerned—once disused, these ancient surnames seem to have been treated as "community property" within the gens. But again, the name may have been a geographic designation to begin with, or an occupational one. Latera are bricks, and so Lucius Sextius Lateranus could have acquired the surname either because he (or one of his ancestors) was a brickmaker—or because he lived in a neighbourhood where bricks were made. This might also be the case with Plautius Lateranus, four centuries later, although if it were a geographical designation, it doesn't necessarily follow that it was the same neighbourhood as in the fourth century BC.

In any case, we know too little about the descent of these imperial Sextii Laterani to be sure of whether they were any relation to Plautius Lateranus. Looking into his family, I note there is a subsection heading for the "Plautii Laterani" under Plautia gens, and they do give the appearance of a distinct family, but only one of them is obviously surnamed Lateranus; the "Plautia Laterana" occurring near the end (out of chronological order) seems to owe her appearance to Christian Settipani, whose rather opaque and inaccessible work has been used to justify numerous otherwise unverifiable genealogical assertions about Roman families, and the surname seems to be the only thing potentially linking her with Plautius Lateranus. The heading was created by PrincenMCA when he created the article in 2017; it's not my handiwork, thankfully, since while the connection of Plautius Lateranus with Aulus Plautius and his family seems to be documented, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that anyone else in the family—barring the possibility of "Plautia Laterana"—bore the surname. And while the imperial Sextii Laterani may have intended others to associate them with Lucius Sextius Lateranus (and it's not really possible to disprove that they were related to, or even descended from him), there's really no justification for considering them a single family.

So from my perspective, Lucius Sextius Lateranus has nothing to do with the family of imperial times; at best he could be a remote ancestor to whom their surname was intended to allude. And there's no evidence that they were related to the Plautii Laterani, besides the surname—if indeed there ever were any other Plautii Laterani, which I think is dubious. It's possible that the consul of 197 received the house from Septimius Severus because it had belonged to Plautius Lateranus, but it's not even certain that it was the same house. If it was, it could have been given to him due to the coincidence of his surname, not because he was descended from the Plautii, for which there seems to be no evidence besides the surname. And it's equally possible that the surname originally designated someone who had been a brickmaker, or lived in the neighbourhood where bricks were made at one time, in which case two wholly unrelated persons living in the same part of Rome could easily have shared it. There certainly was a family of Sextii Laterani, from whom the palace and its surrounding neighbourhood might take their name (if it wasn't still named after the former site of brickyards), but without more evidence I would treat it as separate and distinct from the family of Plautius Lateranus, and from Lucius Sextius Lateranus (although of course they're naturally, and unavoidably, grouped under Sextia gens). P Aculeius (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point above was that the creator of this article, PrincenMCA, didn't just invent the contents of this article from original research (which would make this an open-&-shut case for deletion), but likely took it from Lateran Palace where the "Lateran family" is mentioned (earlier versions of the article make this connection very clear), which in turn was taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia (a source that was not written by experts but by freelancers just as the Encyclopaedia Britannica was), where the "Lateran family" is argued to have existed based on some questionable grounds.
However, P Aculeius, you did the necessary research to show there is no need for this article. Any "Lateran family" would have been the Sextii Laterani, who owned the mansion that Constantine granted to the Popes in the 4th century, & who were a stirps of the Sextia gens. And since this article contains misleading information, I concur that Delete is the best outcome for this article. (And hopefully someone can review the articles that links to this one, & correct the information there.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only page that links to Lateran family is Lateran, which itself could qualify for deletion. Avilich (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That latter page has a number of counterparts in other language Wikipedias. The German WP, for example, is a FA & incorporates material from the Lateran Palace, Lateran Basilica, & other related structures. Its presence & excellence suggests deleting or merging Lateran would create a bigger problem than it would solve. (And it would be a good thing to have some kind of co-ordinating page under that label, even if it were simply a disambiguation page.) I suggest thinking the matter over before nominating that page for deletion. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that PrincenMCA invented this article out of whole cloth, merely that he seems to have determined that the Plautii related to Plautius Lateranus were the "Plautii Laterani", something that seems quite dubious to me, given that there's only one Plautius assigned the surname (not to mention one of the last chronologically), unless you count the "Plautia Laterana" cited only to Settipani. And any genealogical connection cited to Settipani raises red flags for me, not because it's inherently unlikely or because Settipani isn't a reliable source (I think the jury is still out on how accurate his conclusions are, for reasons I won't delve into here), but because some of the editors who've cited to him have very spotty track records on Wikipedia. And if there were no other Plautii Laterani, the chances of these Sextii Laterani acquiring the surname from them are much lower. P Aculeius (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Holders of similar cognomina were not necessarily related, especially over four centuries. A very confusing article. T8612 (talk) 03:49, 11 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.