< January 07	January 09 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lets put this one out of its missery, clear BLP1E, other BLP issues WP:BLPCRIME, WP:SNOW. . Salix alba (talk): 17:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam C. Johnson[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (if it isn't speedied first) fails GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 00:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wouldn't object to him being mentioned on the main article about the riots but a standalone page is a bit much. RexSueciae (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Case study of WP:BLP1E. Not even worth mentioning at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. KidAd talk 00:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, like the other individuals who are not notable other than for storming the capitol. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nominator. Good grief, this could also be a defamation problem if it emerges that the subject is not the person photographed in the image. Very irresponsible article to create at this time IMHO. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 03:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete | See WP:BLP1E and above bullet. Thrakkx (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per BLP1E. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The very definition of WP:BLP1E. If an a few months people are still talking about his apparent involvement, then maybe he can be added to the protests page and a redirect created, but this is a clear BLP1E, ruling out a stand-alone article. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough gng for this individual. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, there is not enough coverage of Mr. Johnson to justify claims of notability. Delete. DS (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a shred of notability Spiderone 13:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete for lack of notability. Starzoner (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, above rationales, and WP:BLPCRIME as explained by BrxBrx above. warmly, ezlev. talk 18:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nomination rationale, above rationale. — Mainly 18:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He's just some super obscure, random doofus who is better known as "Via Getty" for a single picture. He's not even worth mentioning on the Storming of the Capitol page. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete. Clear consensus here is to delete. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article about the storming. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Significant coverage in The Guardian, Evening Standard, New York Times, Newsweek, Forbes (staff), BuzzFeed (dubious), mentions in Vox. No doubt you could find ten times more coverage of such standard with more than 3 minutes of research. BLP1E is up for debate but draftifying or redirecting would be the solution if the issue is current sourcing. Likely this does warrant a mention at the main Capitol storming article (with the best level of sourcing). — Bilorv (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with optional redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol all per Wikipedia:BLP1E. I would have deleted this myself, but, I just nominated the Richard "Bigo" Barnett article for deletion/redirect. Missvain (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 16:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW, no conclusion about the redirect--Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard "Bigo" Barnett[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep for now, as Barnett is clearly not a WP:LOWPROFILE individual. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as a clear example of WP:BLP1E. KidAd talk 00:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no reason every person who was at the Capitol needs an article. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems a clear BLP1E. Not sure if a redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol is justified or not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Archetype example of an individual notable for just one event, Although, @power~enwiki does raise a good point. Celestina007 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. There are claims that the invasion of the Capitol was a false-flag event. There should be pages on the offenders giving their background of being right wing since before Trump.LachlanA (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely going to need reliable sources to back up the "claims" you mention... Thrakkx (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds like an attempt to ignore WP:GNG policy in order to soapbox and right a great wrong. The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol page itself makes it clear enough with literally hundreds of citations that these were right-wing, pro-Trump protesters and not a false flag; if someone doesn't believe those sources, that's not our problem to deal with. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This input is ridiculous and should frankly be salted. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 00:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Factual disputes about the event should be covered in the event page, giving due weight to the conflicting views as supported by reliable sources. The facts can be stated in a paragraph or two in the event article rather than creating one-event biography stubs for alleged, but not-yet-convicted perpetrators. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Definitely a wp:gng and wp:blp1e issue. Possibly also a wp:SUSPECT problem as well. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 03:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete | See WP:BLP1E Thrakkx (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, especially WP:BLP1E. I agree with power~enwiki and Celestina007 that a redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol might be suitable. warmly, ezlev. talk 08:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per nom and everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article about the storming. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and redirect per WP:BLP1E. Redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Missvain (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E; also, under the Presumption of innocence policies in the US it should be impermissible to refer to someone as a criminal without being charged first. Augend (drop a line) 00:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being one of hundreds who participated in an insurrection - his only extraordinary notability being the theft of a letter - does not lend credence to viability as a page on Wikipedia. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 00:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nom. There is nothing notable about the subject prior to rioters, including him, overtaking the Capitol. The subject has yet to be convicted. Also, allowing an un-notable subject's article to remain on Wikipedia feels like a public relations move for the subject. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:NOTNEWS WP:BLP1E WP:CRIME. The several arrestees should be listed in the main article perhaps. Reywas92^Talk 02:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have created a one-liner in the main article on the arrestee. Albertaont (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:BLP1E Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Listing new article title. Page has been moved at least twice. • Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. At the moment, the only rioter partially notable for attending the event was Jake Angeli. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 16:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayrton Sonkur[edit]

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

Does not appear to be subject to significant coverage in multiple sources so does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Alleged two appearances for Queen of the South, which would give him presumed notability under WP:NFOOTBALL, do not appear to be supported by any reliable sources. I have checked Football Database, Soccerway, WF, Flashscore, Football Critic and GSA. Most confirm that he was on the bench once for them but never played. Spiderone 23:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by Spiderone. Celestina007 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL (no senior apps for QOTS per Soccerbase). Giant Snowman 09:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ,Lacks coverage, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Alex-h (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fully agree with the points made about failing notability guidelines made above. Dunarc (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Asian Pacific Islander Desi American Students Union (MAASU)[edit]

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

This is an article about a regional students' union created by a user with a username that indicates a strong connection with the subject. I looked around and I can't find multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail, so as far as I can tell, it fails the GNG. Slashme (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references on the article are all primary, and my search did not find any secondary sources. Jeepday (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Although there's some minor coverage, it's too insignificant. ~EdGl talk 16:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryggeriet Skands[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I haven't been able to find significantly better sources than those that are in the article now, and the Danish article is not better sourced. There is a reference to CNN and BBC Radio in the "Information" source, but as far as I can see those organizations pieces were about the Superflexs Free beer concept and not about Skands Brewery. Sjö (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sjö (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sjö (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sjö (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; lacks coverage. Perhaps other Danish microbrewery articles need to be evaluated as well. ~EdGl talk 20:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the other language page, the references on the English article, and searched google; I do not see anything that meets WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine Socialite[edit]

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

Not significant enough for WP: GNG. Juliett0907 (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2021 (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/2021 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: basically meets CSD A3. // Timothy :: talk 00:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, none found via DDG News, barely any content. MER-C 12:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG , Alex-h (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Lord Grandwell (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Renminbi#Coins. It's up to editors whether to merge anything that can be sourced from the history. Sandstein 07:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Modern Coins[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2009, recommend merging into Renminbi#Coins. Also, the lead paragraph claims that modern Chinese coinage "dates from 1979", however the first renminbi coins were minted in 1953, and circulated in 1955. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The content of this article appears to cover precious metal commemorative coins (Non-circulating legal tender), not coins as in circulating coins. That is why the dates don't match up with renmenbi coins, so the proposed merger target is inappropriate. CMD (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tough one The content clearly belongs somewhere but it also needs to be referenced. I'm not sure a stand-alone article is warranted, that would depend on whether it has "significant coverage" from "reliable, independent sources" and whether, editorially, a stand-alone article is better. If the coins are legal tender, then I disagree with Chipmunkdavis on Renminbi not being a suitable merge target, but it probably should have its own section, separate from Renminbi#Coins. This is a situation that calls for cleanup, and "deletion is not cleanup." If you have to put me down for something, put me down for "preserve history somewhere, no objection to turning page title into a redirect or a locked-redirect." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I would prefer merging/moving content to a different page, over outright deletion. If Renminbi isn't an appropriate merge target, then Non-circulating legal tender could potentially be made into a catch-all page covering commemorative coins from all countries; then if that's not suitable, then this page at least needs a cleanup, with references added, and probably also a title rename to something more specific than "modern coins". --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to start an "all countries' commemorative legal tender coins get listed here" page for commemorative coins or, as you suggest, re-purposing a different page to turn it into one without at least notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics as they would likely be maintaining it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree about the rename, but that's a topic for after this AFD closes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is some overlap with Bullion coin, which includes some Chinese coins already, but it is organised per-metal rather than per-country. CMD (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: That would make a reasonable redirect target, using ((R to related topic)) and ((R with history)) inside ((rcat shell)), with a link back to this discussion in the page history in the ((Old XfD multi)) template on Talk:Chinese Modern Coins. As I said earlier, this is a "tough one" with several reasonable solutions. To the closer: I'll "not oppose consensus" for any reasonable outcome that preserves the history. That includes the history-preserving outcomes mentioned in this discussion so far. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Renminbi#Coins per davidwr comments above. We should never merge unsourced material into another article, espeicially into a reasonably sourced target at the level of the Renminbi. If sources could be found to turn this into a stub, I have no objection. // Timothy :: talk 23:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Cash (Chinese coin) or with Renminbi#Coins. This is definitely encyclopedic content, but I can't see it as a standalone page. As far as I can tell, the coinage issues of a currency are not by themselves notable unless they have gained significant coverage through for example, special limited editions, botched recalls, or something of the like. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 03:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halfway, Barren County, Kentucky[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. The only Halfway mention in Rennick's Barren County directory is an individual house (probably referring to something else), his index calls this place a locale but doesn't describe it. Topos show three houses at a crossroads. I've been able to find two or three passing mentions in newspapers.com and Google books, but nothing significant - everything significant is for Halfway, Allen County, Kentucky. Not seeing a way this place is notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 13:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. WP:GEOLAND "informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." // Timothy :: talk 00:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intrepid (film)[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NFSOURCES; the Radio Times link is a capsule review and capsule reviews are "insufficient to fully establish notability" per NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything to establish notability either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found a few examples of coverage, although they weren't plentiful or in-depth: [1], [2], [3]. It's quite possible that more coverage exists from the time of its release. --Michig (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above mentioned coverage. Seems enough to pass WP:GNG Donaldd23 (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuttings Wharf, California[edit]

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

It was literally a wharf, which the county took over back in the 1920s and gradually turned into the marina it is today. Doesn't seem to be notable, and certainly isn't an never was a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. No post office. GBooks had a few hits, but all fairly trivial. newspapers.com found a number of hits including an article about the history of Cuttings Wharf and about the low quality housing. The Napa Valley Register has coverage from around 2011 about the housing and its eventual demolition. The state of California recognizes a boat launch at this location, but I don't feel that necessarily meets legal recognition of a community, so #1 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. However, there seems to be non-trivial coverage of the location from multiple sources, so on that basis #2 of WP:GEOLAND is met. In particular, that there is an article about Cuttings Wharf meets my needs, and there are other articles such as [4] over the years. It is of interest and possibly notable how this location at one time provided low income housing in a county known for its affluence. I don't have strong feelings about keeping this article, though I did just now spend some time adding references and I feel like it meets a basic standard of notability. Cxbrx (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that explains a peculiar detail in some of the aerials, which show a dense cluster of "buildings" which, from these articles, were actually war surplus army tents. I'll have to look into this a bit further; I'm not quite clear on the notability. Mangoe (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of various sources [5] indicate that actual buildings were moved, not surplus army tents. That being written, I'm fine with this article being deleted if it is too WP:MILL. It seems like a typical very small community with substandard housing that results in evictions. FWIW - there are signs on CA-12 for this locale and "Napa Valley Resorts". This does not make the locale notable, but I was always curious as to what exactly was down those roads. Cxbrx (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting.. I live about 5 miles from here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thanks to Cxbrx, this article has passed the Heymann Standard and has proven notability, because it now has more verified historical content which proves the notability. Koridas 📣 21:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this is another one of these articles about non settlements that were mass created by Carlossuarez46. However, Cxbrx has done a fine job of improving the article with references.___Kieran207 talk 22:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Mathesius[edit]

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

Non-notable architect; total failure of WP:SIGCOV. I made a good faith effort to propose deletion, with proper notices to editors, and evidence of the same was deleted by a third party editor. This has been tagged for notability for a decade without any substantive improvements. It was proposed for deletion in the past, and that was refused without stating any reason. This person is clearly not notable, and I'm unclear why editors keep trying to keep this biographical stub -- little more than a WP:DICDEF -- in the face of lack of sources and not making any effort to fix the per se deficiencies. I have not nominated an article for deletion in many years, and I have no axe to grind, but this one is a clear case for me. Anyway, I'm bringing the matter to the community. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The last time I nominated an article for deletion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Anselm, about 6 and a half years ago. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "working with" a firm that is awarded the contract to design a post office is not the stuff that notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google search and Google news search shows no major online publications featuring this person, the only thing I could find is this book? https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/applicants/env-review/east_midtown/06_feis.pdf which lists him as an architect of an important building in NYC. I'm not an expert in architecture, if one exists here, please advise your opinion/analysis of available info online. If he has worked on historic / landmark projects, it should be added to the page and referenced, otherwise as-is it is a clear delete as per nominator. If new reliable sources showing notability / major architectural works are found in the future, a new page can be created. CosmicNotes (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Due to computer problems, I was unable to reply for several days. Should we alert additional Wiki projects, or does an admin want to re-list this discussion? Bearian (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by Bearian, I do not believe there is significant coverage. Celestina007 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Michael Atherton. Anyone who wishes to rescue the content from behind the redirect, and merge into the main article, is welcome to do so at their convenience. Daniel (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST as it says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Completely sourced with cricinfo. Störm (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge, this and other similar lists are allowed as per WP:SPLIT. There are 72 articles in Category:Lists of international cricket centuries by player, so if this one is problematic, then there should be a discussion about the whole set. If the convention that he doesn't have enough to have a separate article is not met then this should be merged back to Michael Atherton. If people want to argue that this is WP:NOTSTATS then none of the List of centuries... should exist, as they are created as splits from the main article. Spike 'em (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some are WP:NOTSTATS, not all. List for which there are sources that discuss the player's centuries in detail, for that, we can create a separate list per WP:NLIST. We don't need any arbitrary number, like 25, to create such lists. Störm (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm: your point makes sense but surely that would mean articles like this, which is a featured list by the way, would be nominated for deletion. Would you nominate an article like that or this for AFD as it fails WP:NLIST? CreativeNorth (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking specifically about the addition of this list back into the parent page. I agree with the recent AfDs that held that if there was no need for a split, then the content should be merged. Spike 'em (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge as per Spike'em. CreativeNorth (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand the quote from the referenced WP:NLIST :One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. There is clearly no consensus that the only notability criteria for a standalone list is that is has been discussed as a group. There is also the guidance in WP:NOTSTATS that : Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. Spike 'em (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two criteria, either list topic should have coverage as a group in multiple WP:RS or we create list navigational purpose where we only link articles. WP:NOTSTATS is a general guideline that applies to all articles with statistics. It is not limited to lists and in your quoted text it even doesn't mention that it applies to the list. Störm (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote again: There is no present consensus for how to assess ... what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. This does not match your claim of it having to meet 1 of 2 criteria. NOTSTATS says to split if it makes an article difficult to read. I'm open to discussion as to whether this is the case for these lists, but I hold that the lists should be kept as either a table on the parent article or as a stand-alone list. Spike 'em (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Following earlier AFDs here and here, there is nothing to warrant a separate article, per WP:SPLIT. Per nom, these articles do not stand on their own. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But these earlier AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan resulted in being deleted. There is nothing to warrant a separate article, NOR is there any justifiable reason why such indiscriminate information needs to appear on the players' BLP articles. Ajf773 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other outcomes of 'List of international cricket centuries..' articles. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Michael Atherton. Azuredivay (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other similar lists. Just indiscriminate stats, available on stats sites elsewhere. Nigej (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayflower Corporation[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no significant in-depth coverage of the company was found. Fails WP:COMPANY. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company that only had a brief corporate existence.TH1980 (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and WP:NOTINHERITED. It appears what little coverage they did get was because of a famous director. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tom Latham (cricketer). Anyone who wishes to rescue the content from behind the redirect, and merge into the main article, is welcome to do so at their convenience. Daniel (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST as it says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Störm (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Have you never heard of WP:MULTIAFD or are you deliberately being disruptive? My keep reasons are on one of the other related AfDs that this should have been bundled with. Spike 'em (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NLIST first and then re-comment. Policies change with time, based on the consensus, so articles/lists should reflect that. You should link your reasoning as your rationale doesn't make sense. Closing admin should ignore such comments. Störm (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok: to expand on partially quoted WP:NLIST : One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. There is clearly no consensus that the only notability criteria for a standalone list is that is has been discussed as a group. There is also the guidance in WP:NOTSTATS that : Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. Spike 'em (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSTATS is a general guideline that applies to all articles with statistics. It is not limited to lists and in your quoted text it even doesn't mention that it applies to the list. Störm (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Following earlier AFDs here and here, there is nothing to warrant a separate article, per WP:SPLIT. Per nom, these articles do not stand on their own. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But these earlier AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan resulted in being deleted. There is nothing to warrant a separate article, NOR is there any justifiable reason why such indiscriminate information needs to appear on the players' BLP articles. Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not indiscriminate information : a century is a significant achievement in a Test match, and I agree with Wjemather that if a standalone article is not necessary then this is valid information to put on a player's page. NOTSTATS acknowledges that some statistical information is valid, and says we should not have Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. One list of achievements, with an explanation, is not excessive. Spike 'em (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If any significant career achievements should be worthy of mention they should in prose form, with independent secondary sources, on the players' articles. As they are currently, they are just a list of instances where a player scored a century, accompanied by its match reference on Cricinfo. This is the type of stats we should avoid, Wikipedia isn't a fansite. I do not support merging for that reason either. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability Spike 'em (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is whether a list of all matches in which the player scored an international century is noteworthy in the first place. Ajf773 (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article of the subject. Santosh L (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure if you actually looked at the article history but the article has already been proposed for deletion but it was overturned. Other cricket players with only very few more centuries have these type of articles which have not been put up for deletion. Latham is only going to continue to score more centuries and if this article is deleted it will very soon have to be created again. (talk)

That's not really a good reason to keep an article. If the topic ever does get to a situation where it needs to be created again, then a redirect (where history is retained) is plausible. Also there is no harm for someone to draftify the article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other outcomes of 'List of international cricket centuries..' articles. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other similar lists. Just indiscriminate stats, available on stats sites elsewhere. Nigej (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Consensus that the film should stay as a draft until it is released. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avalakki Pavalakki[edit]

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

Future film that has no evidence of imminent release, coverage of production has been fairly run-of-the-mill, should not have a standalone article per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 22:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: or at best draftify if there is a possibility of the movie getting sigcov down the line. There's no coverage on this at the moment. I can't speak for any print sources in Kannada, but I can't see any in a search, and if there is any that is not online, it is unlikely to be from a non-local source or an RS. Java Hurricane 11:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifyper JavaHurricane. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until released. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dinesh Chandimal. Anyone who wishes to rescue the content from behind the redirect, and merge into the main article, is welcome to do so at their convenience. Daniel (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dinesh Chandimal. Azuredivay (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other outcomes of 'List of international cricket centuries..' articles. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Have you never heard of WP:MULTIAFD or are you deliberately being disruptive? My keep reasons are on one of the other related AfDs that this should have been bundled with. Spike 'em (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NLIST first and then re-comment. Policies change with time, based on the consensus, so articles/lists should reflect that. You should link your reasoning as your rationale doesn't make sense. Closing admin should ignore such comments. Störm (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To expand the quote from the referenced WP:NLIST :One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. There is clearly no consensus that the only notability criteria for a standalone list is that is has been discussed as a group. There is also the guidance in WP:NOTSTATS that : Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. The closing admin should ignore selectively quoted guidelines. Spike 'em (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSTATS is a general guideline that applies to all articles with statistics. It is not limited to lists and in your quoted text it even doesn't mention that it applies to the list. Störm (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Following earlier AFDs here and here, there is nothing to warrant a separate article, per WP:SPLIT. Per nom, these articles do not stand on their own. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But these earlier AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan resulted in being deleted. There is nothing to warrant a separate article, NOR is there any justifiable reason why such indiscriminate information needs to appear on the players' BLP articles. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other similar lists. Just indiscriminate stats, available on stats sites elsewhere. Nigej (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mortiis. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC) (amended to reflect the fact that soft redirect does not equate soft delete Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Vond[edit]

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

Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable music project. This could safely be included in Mortiis' article. I don't see why this needs to be a separate article, especially in this state. It is tagged for references since August 2011, and no sources have been added ever since. During a Google search I only found the standard unreliable sources. Interestingly, searching with "Mortiis Vond" returns a lot of results, but all of them are databases, sites which mirror Wikipedia (also, the text of this article is repeated on several sites, and I have a suspicion that in turn, this was copied from one of these sites), and retail sites. So yeah, not notable on its own, in my opinion. The project doesn't have an article on the Norwegian Wiki either. This can be included in Mortiis' article like I said above. The article was created by a SPA/COI editor way back in 2005, and Mortiis himself has edited the article as well, who also edited other articles that are related to his work. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortiis, which has already been done for bandleader Håvard Ellefsen. There is nothing to merge because Vond has no reliable and significant coverage. Beyond self-created social media they are only present in the unreliable Encyclopedia Metallum, [6] from which all of this article's text was copied (or vice-versa). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus towards deleting at this time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Full Moon Show[edit]

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

No independent sources, wasn't able to find anything in a BEFORE search online. Does not meet WP:GNG _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnotable podcast with cruft, original research, and not a single secondary source. IceWelder [✉] 20:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Insomniac Games. --Masem (t) 21:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this was previously a redirect to Insomniac Games and was restored to article form following an RfD that found the redirect to be unhelpful. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the RFD , which had only one !vote, so it's hard to say there's concensus to say the redirect was unhelpful. It seems a fully valid search term, so I don't see why merging (reduced to a single line or two, not the full article) with a redirect left behind, is anything less than appropriate. --Masem (t) 20:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge I was considering nominating this page myself and my research found that, not only is this show not notable, it's significantly less notable than a TV series of the same name that aired in the early 1990s. Don't merge because redirects for discussion already voted against this being a redirect and info on this show was erased from Insomniac Games for a reason. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is nothing valuable here for a merge. OceanHok (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to show any notability - fails WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's nothing useful here that warrants a merge. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 19:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not SIGCOV from IS RS that addresses the subject directly and indepth to support a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 11:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toktok[edit]

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links predominantly to primary sources. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Organization does not receive SIGCOV in RS so therefore does not pass notability requirements laid out in WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of eponymous adjectives in English[edit]

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

Usually we have lists which either list wikipedia articles, such as List of eponymous laws (although I doubt the encyclpedicity of the later one as well). At best this page must be moved to wiktionary. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://www.bbc.com/learningenglish/burmese/course/intermediate/unit-26/session-1/activity-2 and http://web.stanford.edu/~clark/1980s/Clark,%20H.H.%20_Making%20sense%20of%20nonce%20sense_%201983.pdf give significant coverage to this. Dream Focus 23:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A course in English language for Burmese. An additional confirmation that this list belongs to Wiktionary. A wikipedia article would be Adjectives from surnames in English language, or something. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists don't have to be lists of articles in order to be useful. (Nor would this content be suitable at Wiktionary.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LISTGLOSSARY: Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, many ideas for glossaries, in which entries would be little more than dictionary definitions ("dicdefs"), may be better suited to Wiktionary. Glossaries that do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria or not-a-dictionary policy should be migrated to Wiktionary at wikt:Category:English glossaries. Wiktionary also freely forks Wikipedia's encyclopedic glossaries for redevelopment to Wiktionary's purposes and standards, in its Appendix: namespace. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The name of the list should not be changed, but it is a list of notable people and functions as a navigation list meeting WP:CLN WP:AOAL. The view count supports this as a useful navigation list. // Timothy :: t | c | a 02:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Rama Rao Gandikota[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill career graph of a retired Commander. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MILPEOPLE. His philately work could hold some water but no WP:SIGCOV and poorly sourced. Author of the article has CoI (son). RationalPuff (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is nothing in the article that shows he served in a top level post or an important role in any war. Fails WP:NSOLDIER requirements. He served in the war as an officer but it is not clear if he served any leading role in the operation he participated in. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After a WP:BEFORE search the subject has not received WP:SIGCOV in a WP:RS therefore does not meet the notability requirements WP:N and should not be included in the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and written by his son[7]. Should have been CSD'ed long ago. Kges1901 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:MILL, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:GNG. In 2008 that would be excusable, but in 2021, everybody knows we are not a free web host for your daddy's web page. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José L. Rivera[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. One award of the Navy Cross doesn't establish notability Mztourist (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not there to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Star Trek: Enterprise (season 1). Consensus that the topic is not notable. May be recreated if you find sufficient sources for WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Planet (Star Trek: Enterprise)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of reviews or commentary. TTN (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has eternal references and is a useful guide to the episode but it could do with additional commentary. Rillington (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article only has a single reference, which is an actresses' death article that simply mentions the episode once. That is useless. If you're referring to the external links, they're three wiki-style sites and an official site, so they're not reliable sources. TTN (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the plot summary to Star Trek: Enterprise (season 1). Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 18:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above unless sources are showing that suggset this episode has stand-alone notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vent Pro[edit]

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

Declined WP:AfC draft that was then moved into main space by the author. In line with WP:NSOFT, I have checked for coverage in Gbooks, Gnews and Gscholar and found nothing under both publishers listed in the article. This would not pass WP:GNG by the looks of it either. It is currently referenced only to forum posts that were made on 7th January (yesterday as I type this). I'm no software genius but this doesn't strike me as being a notable enough piece of software for Wikipedia. Spiderone 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After removing all references that led to 404 Not Found, this article currently has ZERO sources. - Insurance Lovers 16 January 2021

The complete lack of sources makes me think that this is a hoax. I mean I can't even find a company website or a Facebook page or anything... Spiderone 22:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the process, but given all of this, could this be changed to a Speedy Deletion? I can't see how anyone would possibly support keeping this. Insurance Lovers 13:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by InsuranceLovers (talk • contribs) [reply]

In hindsight, I should have requested speedy delete as hoax or used WP:PROD. I thought that the article creator might contest deletion so created the AfD but it doesn't look like this software even exists so probably shouldn't have bothered. It's probably best just to let the AfD run its course now that it's been going for 9 days or so. Spiderone 14:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Mehta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another vanity article with no encyclopedic value. Fails WP:ENT, WP:SPORTSPERSON RationalPuff (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of promotionalism but not substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same content, seems like branding PangolinPedia 07:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the WP:REFBOMBing fails to hide the lack of notability Spiderone 23:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip Roy (author)[edit]

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

Non-notable author fails WP:AUTHOR. Google search returns nothing substantial, other than linking back to Wiki. Not to be confused with Sandip Ray. RationalPuff (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:BEFORE search doesn't reveal much and most of the sources in the article are either primary or wouldn't be considered reliable. Doesn't pass WP:N requirements, therefore delete is my conclusion. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have heard of him, but without significant coverage, he's not notable. I'm afraid that he's friends with two friends of mine, one of whom is my alternate executor. Yes, the gay world is quite small. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article say that his book longlisted for the DSC Prize, one of the major literary awards in South Asia. But I don't think he has received such nomination. Neither the linked reference nor the DSC wikipage support this fact. If he really has received such nomination, I may change my vote to keep. --Gazal world (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mitichi[edit]

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

Exudes promotion, but cannot mask the subject’s insignificance. Relies largely on a couple of softball interviews with questions such as “how did you spend your childhood vacations”, “what is the key to your success”, “what are your career plans”. No objective indication of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources given. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lipsitz[edit]

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

utterly non-notable corporate dude. No meaningful coverage, everything is sourced to PR and the normal spam mills. My redirect was contested, so afding. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most sources are articles about the company, that briefly mention him. Others are non-notable sources used to back it up. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Doesn't receive SIGCOV in RS and therefore doesn't pass the basic notability guideline for inclusion (See WP:N). --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I confirm what the above editors say; no notability independent of the company. FalconK (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stars Dance. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stars Dance (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Except for the chart position on the French singles chart (which does not warrant notability), this article is made up of information within context of album discussions/reviews, and per NSONGS: Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. References used in this article are also doubtful in terms of reliability. HĐ (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that its peak on the French singles chart was not even in the top 100. Redirect to Stars Dance. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stars Dance. Fails WP:NSONG. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cyberman. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telos (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

Same as Mondas, this topic fails WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to in-universe summaries and contextual mentions in relation to other plot elements. TTN (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cyberman - The article has zero reliable sources, and is comprised almost entirely of plot information. Searching for sources does not actually turn up much in reliable sources - its mentioned here and there in the context of describing the plots of Dr. Who related products, but that's about it. A reasonable redirect target exists, so that should be done, but there is nothing here that should be merged, considering none of it is sourced. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article has been worked on substantially in the past 15+ years and is a useful resource for those interested in the subject. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how WP:IAR is able to be invoked for a minor plot element simply due to the length of its existence. There are plenty of plot elements that have skipped through the gaps over Wikipedia's existence. This is useful in the same way a Fandom article is useful, good for fans but irrelevant to a general encyclopedia. TTN (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Cyberman, pure Wikia material that fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cyberman. There are no sources here but it is mentioned at that article. Archrogue (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Cyberman. No evidence of stand-alone notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cyberman - very clearly lacks WP:SIGCOV on its own Spiderone 11:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cyberman. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. With more than 45,000 citations on GScholar, this is miles above our usual threshold for notability (from 1000-2000, depending on the field). As remarked by Xxanthippe, this meets more than one of the criteria in PROF. While we often delete bios on the request of the subject, we only do this is notability is marginal. This is obviously not the case here. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lerman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and possibly WP:PROF as well. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citation record looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1 (even disregarding the papers with the large numbers of coauthors), and his named position is a possible pass of WP:NPROF C5. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks to pass WP:NACADEMIC #1, arguably #2, and #5 at least. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Named professor at an Ivy League university, clearly stated at the top of the article, is so obvious a pass of WP:PROF#C5 that the nominator's WP:VAGUEWAVE towards WP:PROF cannot be taken seriously. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think there's a WP:G7 here. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- G7. The above user is correct. This is a G7. 2603:7000:2143:8500:780E:6CB0:A1E5:2E2C (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's had too much editing by others to be eligible for G7. What you want is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but for that you also need an argument that the subject's notability is only borderline. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the G7 request, as this editor pointed out, it had not had too much editing to be eligible for G7 by anyone other than the creating editor. The editor who posted that comment - the only one commenting other than the proposing editor, wrote: "this looks like a relatively straight forward WP:G7 to me, rather than a WP:BLPSELF? Article has a bit of history, but if you strip out the AfC accept and the ping-pong over blanking, this is the only substantial editor." This is just an issue of it being properly posted, getting proper support for G7, but sitting waiting for action. I would urge deletion." 2603:7000:2143:8500:C5CE:2DC3:2A6C:8159 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets several categories of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cyberman. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mondas[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to in-universe summaries and contextual mentions in relation to other plot elements. TTN (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cyberman, fails GNG. SK2242 (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cyberman - The only sources being used in the article are pieces of fiction. Searching for additional sources turns up a few mentions here and there in the context of plot descriptions for Dr. Who products, but nothing particularly in-depth. As a reasonable target exists, though, Redirecting seems like the most appropriate course of action. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Cyberman. No evidence of stand-alone notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Cyberman. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete at this time. With that said and as per usual, no prejudice towards recreation should notability be clearly established per WP:NBLP or similar, more relevant, guidelines as backed up by reliable sources. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Barclay[edit]

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

Zero significant roles in notable films. Fails WP:NACTOR, and does not meet WP:GNG either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She has had roles in NYPD Blue (the new series), In Darkness, Defending the Guilty^[1] and so on. I am in the process of adding to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stui (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just having roles does not add up to being notable. She lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions. She is not a notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NACTOR. SK2242 (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some references. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now I’m not seeing a notable acting career. The media (tabloid fodder more like) she does receive is more focused on her being related to a billionaire. Trillfendi (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade (digital marketing agency)[edit]

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

Non-notable company, substantially identical to declined draft Draft:Comrade (company). Contested WP:PROD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and no explanation by IP while contesting prod, nor any subsequent effort to improve the article. SK2242 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the current Notability WP:N requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also does not pass WP:NCORP. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP.-KH-1 (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like they are just marketing themselves. Not enough good independent sources. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raat (film)[edit]

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

~~Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help this pass WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom, fails NFILM and GNG. SK2242 (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep so the AfD can be withdrawn. SK2242 (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two book sources added in the article by Shshshsh (Ref #1, Ref #4) give significant critical commentary on the film. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - books cited prior to this nomination. An unjustified nomination, and I do not understand how WP:BEFORE was met really. Just a quick Google search yields many results in reliable sources, books and even scholarly journals. I'm not referring specifically to the nominator, but I can't get this habit of massively deleting Indian films, even those which are clearly notable. This systematic bias is really bad for Wikipedia. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above comments. @Shshshsh: I also have a major issue with how English Wikipedia is handeling its Indian films right now, its seems hugely ignorant for a bunch of monolingual English speakers to decide that articles should be deleted just because they personally can't find sources in another language from one single google search. I think some larger action against this needs to be done as well as a review of a lot of the recent deletions of Indian films.★Trekker (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - several more sources added, including books and scholarly journals, as well as a film review published at the time of release. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's really strange how this film (and so the article) can ever be considered 'non-notable.' Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn due to improvements. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldd23: The discussion can't be closed as 'withdrawn' unless SK2242 withdraws his delete !vote. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SK2242 (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Núñez-Juárez[edit]

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

Another private first class who recieved the Navy Cross and went MIA. Non-notable. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article that does not meet our inclusion criteria for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Really? He does not meet the inclusion criteria for soldiers? He was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross, second highest military award of the United States of America after the Medal of Honor, that's all. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. One award of the Navy Cross doesn't satisfy #1 of WP:SOLDIER. There are 7,565 Americans unaccounted for from the Korean War, don't see what makes him notable. Mztourist (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It totally wrong that a soldier must be awarded more then one Navy Cross to be notable. Who came up with that idea? The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is related discussion about this nomination here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71#Nomination_of_Jorge_Otero_Barreto_for_deletion Mercy11 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, which in this case you specifically named in my "talk" page "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. 270 Navy Crosses were awarded during the Korean War, we don't have a page for every recipient. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant content from a related discussion page.
The relevant information below comes from the WP page here I view this and the above AfD's as a sudden agenda of personal attacks on the articles which are about "Hispanic" war heroes. This never happened before and what is cited as a reason for the nominations is an essay not policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] You have created a number of pages about people who do not satisfy WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG and therefore are not notable. Being the first Puerto Rican/Hispanic to do X does not establish notability. That's why these pages are being put up for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Really? So it is about the pages that I created and not what others have created? Let me tell you the person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, in this case you specifically name "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. I ask myself, what is the use of continuing in this project when after so many years the articles which have been created with hard work following the guidelines come under attack and are nominated for deletion? Tony the Marine (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Tony. Unless this is an approved decision to remove every 'minor' American hero regardless of background from the encyclopedia then it should not begin with minority Americans. They are underrepresented in American history as it is. Let them be the last to be removed if at all.Dmercado (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography. While WP:SOLDIER is just an Essay it sets out presumptions as to military notability, which if the person has SIGCOV in multiple RS means that they deserve a page. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. GNG applies to everyone regardless of nationality and User:Marine 69-71 as an Admin should know that. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Its a consensus, you are welcome to try to argue it at AFD or elsewhere.Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comment - User:Letter and User:Mztourist seem to be supporting each other's delete nominations: one nominating the article for delete and the other user quickly agreeing to its deletion. I'll explain, (from what I've spotchecked) when User:Letter nominates the soldier article for deletion, Mztourist agrees on delete and vice versa. To nomination closer: If anything, remember that the delete is not a "count" vote. The two users agreeing on all deletion of specific soldier article nominations seems strange to me. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Exactly, I have been accused of "canvassing" when it seems as if the two users mentioned have teamed up to eliminate articles about our heroes only because according to an essay they were not notable for being awarded one of the second highest military decoration of the United States. Instead it should be taken into account that the heroic actions that they made would in another case merit the Medal of Honor. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant content from a related discussion page.

The relevant information below comes from the WP page here

I view this and the above AfD's as a sudden agenda of personal attacks on the articles which are about "Hispanic" war heroes. This never happened before and what is cited as a reason for the nominations is an essay not policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have created a number of pages about people who do not satisfy WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG and therefore are not notable. Being the first Puerto Rican/Hispanic to do X does not establish notability. That's why these pages are being put up for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Really? So it is about the pages that I created and not what others have created? Let me tell you the person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, in this case you specifically name "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. I ask myself, what is the use of continuing in this project when after so many years the articles which have been created with hard work following the guidelines come under attack and are nominated for deletion? Tony the Marine (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with Tony. Unless this is an approved decision to remove every 'minor' American hero regardless of background from the encyclopedia then it should not begin with minority Americans. They are underrepresented in American history as it is. Let them be the last to be removed if at all.Dmercado (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography. While WP:SOLDIER is just an Essay it sets out presumptions as to military notability, which if the person has SIGCOV in multiple RS means that they deserve a page. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. GNG applies to everyone regardless of nationality and User:Marine 69-71 as an Admin should know that. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its a consensus, you are welcome to try to argue it at AFD or elsewhere.Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Letter and User:Mztourist seem to be supporting each other's delete nominations: one nominating the article for delete and the other user quickly agreeing to its deletion. I'll explain, (from what I've spotchecked) when User:Letter nominates the soldier article for deletion, Mztourist agrees on delete and vice versa. To nomination closer: If anything, remember that the delete is not a "count" vote. The two users agreeing on all deletion of specific soldier article nominations seems strange to me. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I have been accused of "canvassing" when it seems as if the two users mentioned have teamed up to eliminate articles about our heroes only because according to an essay they were not notable for being awarded one of the second highest military decoration of the United States. Instead it should be taken into account that the heroic actions that they made would in another case merit the Medal of Honor. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A nomination using the WP:NSOLDIER essay as a delete criteria? Since when do we make delete decisions based on an WP:SPS as non-notable as a WP essay? What is a WP essay if it isn't a piece of writing expressing an editor's personal POV with no oversight by a notable editorial board of SMEs nor peer-reviewed by experts qualified in the branch on knowledge in question? I frown upon arguments made based on WP essays as if they were anything more than someone's desperate attempt to make his/her views known at WP after failing to get his/her ideas approved by the community at large and after failing to get those ideas into one of WP's [{WP:PG]]. Mercy11 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should familiarize yourself with the criteria used in assessing Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: rather than insulting editors' intelligence or reading ability, you should have already stepped aside and allow the nomination to run its course rather than jumping in everytime an editor makes a comment you don't like. Mercy11 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mercy11 the insults were against those who developed and apply WP:SOLDIER and you decided to paste an irrelevant Talk Page discussion on multiple pages. Mztourist (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no coverage indicative of GNG in a search. We don't consider every hero who received the Navy cross to meet ANYBIO-- a broader discussion would be needed to change that. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Romero-Nieves[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A private first class who received the Navy Cross. Not-notable. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievably, this was actually AFDed before with the result being delete, but no one deleted it. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was deleted after the AFD, but it was subsequently recreated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single award of the Navy Cross is inadequate under WP:SOLDIER, and coverage in reliable sources is zilch. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Energy Stability criterion[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three domain stability of a non-conservative system. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as given at the other AfD: no indications that this idea has been influential beyond its original author. There may also be a conflict-of-interest issue with the article creator. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion mentioned in nom. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - again, louder for the newbies - Wikipedia has never published original research nor a methods manual. Bearian (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Marx[edit]

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

Marx is almost completely known just because her father was a famous actor. Her one action that got her any notice, editing the letters her father wrote her into a book, would not have ever garnered enough notice if her father had been anyone else, and only got her very passing notice. This is just not the stuff notability is made of John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having famous parents doesn't preclude individual notability and, in fact, makes it more likely. The LA Times thought she was notable enough to publish a long, by-lined obituary upon her death in 2017. pburka (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her death was also covered by the Hollywood Reporter. I've done some text clean up and added additional refs. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough here for notability. Might be closer question if it was still a BLP. Thanks Dnllnd for the improvements. Cool Hand Luke 17:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Baby Shark. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Shark Live![edit]

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

This article is about a series of live shows built around the popular “Baby Shark” song. It’s based on the brand’s own website and PR supporting forthcoming performances around the world. I don’t see anything to indicate in depth coverage in RIS so this looks like a candidate for deletion or possibly a merge/redirect to Baby Shark. Mccapra (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baby Shark.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 13:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baby Shark, an article which we kept in part because I did the hard work to show the a bit more of the long history of that song dating back decades, and that it is more than just a recent phenomenon, even if in the pre-YoutTube era children's songs, especially ones that show up at camps, are much harder to see showing up in sources, but the evidence is there for its use decades ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baby Shark per above. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on possible Concert Notability. Aside from the mention of any 2017 Seoul musical tour in the article, that I have not researched much, the named Baby Shark Live! musical tour seems to have started in the fall of 2019, in coordination between Pinkfong and Round Room Live. This article lacks much history and background of the production, and more might be found in these additional sources: Good Housekeeping (July 2019) [8], Billboard (July 2019) [9], Los Angeles Times (October 2019) [10], CNN (October 2019) [11] and substantial information from The New York Times (November 2019) [12].

Reviews can be found at: Los Angeles Times (October 2019) [13], Yahoo!/Parents (November 2019) [14] [15], Vulture (November 2019), The New Yorker (November 2019), [16], and The Pitch (May 2020) [17].

Unfortunately, the tour opening just prior to COVID-19 (alas for all the arts!) paused any continuation, per Baby Shark Live! official website.

I am willing to start adding more information from the above citations to try to fulfill notability, if suitable for a reassessment. If it looks like a lost cause, let me know before I spend much time on it.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for finding these. Many of the links you’ve posted are to more stories based on press releases. However the review pieces you’ve shared do change the picture and I think if there are more of them then notability would be established. Mccapra (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Along with the five reviews listed above, I should have added a sixth review of the tour's premiere night found in the motherlode article, also listed above, in The New York Times (November 2019) [18], that includes an interview with the producers and comprehensive background material. In addition, please see a newly found article with a phone interview of one of the show's producers at Los Angeles Daily News (March 2020) [19].

And these two articles, Yonhap News Agency (March 2020) [20] and JoongAng Ilbo (November 2020) [21] provide an audience count of 93,000 for 33 fall 2019 North American shows, prior to the 2020 spring cancellation of most of the 100 remaining shows, due to Covid. I also found two articles providing some history of the older and unrelated Pinkfong Baby Shark concert performances in Asia, presently mentioned in the article: Maeil Business Newspaper (May 2017) [22] and Korea Economic Daily (August 2018) [23].

Again, I will start to update the article, but wanted to double-check on how much is going to authenticate it, before doing more work.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Can be spun out if it ever has substantial independent coverage that a capsule summary in the underlying Baby Shark article cannot contain. Cool Hand Luke 17:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gassama Alfusainey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem any more notable than when he was previously up for deletion. Still hasn't played at professional level so still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Searches under both "Gassama Alfusainey" and "Cesc Gassama" reveal nothing more than trivial coverage. I would expect someone who gets almost a goal per game to have more coverage than this (the infobox stats are unsourced and I couldn't find a source that confirms them). Nothing at Playmakerstats, GSA or Football Critic. Spiderone 12:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything in Soccerway, either. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer. This article does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I definitely would agree with WP:SALT being used Spiderone 17:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No clear consensus exists, and the article has been updated during the period of this discussion. Two relists later and nothing has really been settled. No prejudice towards a re-nomination in the near future. Daniel (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PG Era[edit]

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

Delete this is WP:CRUFT, it fails WP: Notability, it is not a notable period in Wrestling unlike Attitude Era, no Wp:RS exists to make it notable enough, the article is also poorly written, poorly structured, failing Wikipedia on every grounds. No major occurrence like the Monday night wars in the attitude era or the yes movement in the reality era or the women's evolution in the new era which made those phases eligible for their own article. The PG era was initially a fan given name after the transition to PG in 2008, the WWE Brand Extension existed in 2002-2011, no WP:RS distinguishes the Ruthless Aggression era and the early PG Era (2008-2011). Not all eras are notable like the 80s Pro Wrestling Boom, Attitude Era, Reality Era and New Era to have their own articles. This article doesn't even have a source let alone WP:RS and fails WP:V on every ground. So I feel it should be deleted, as everything written would be just from a fan POV and WP:OR with zero notablity as per WP:RS guidelines. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not every four year period of a company needs a separate article. ItsKesha (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — LM2000 (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ People tossed this phrase around a lot online during the peak years of John Cena's run but it was never a clearly defined era. Wrestling had been PG before this and most WWE programming is still PG today. WWE never really called it this and this article stinks of WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm somewhat wrong, WWE used did refer to the "PG Era" in a poll once. I'm not satisfied we've met WP:SIGCOV requirements from reliable sources though.LM2000 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - After some thought, I do think that the transition to TV-PG between the Benoit murders-suicide and Linda McMahon's senate runs did garner enough attention for an article. I don't like it framed in the context of an "era" akin to the Attitude Era or New Generation (where's the New Generation article btw?) because I don't think it was ever purported to be that. But the move toward kid-friendly programming after years of raunchiness, and amid scandals and declining ratings has been thoroughly covered by WP:RS.LM2000 (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Remember that eras aren't just a promotional tool by the company. Quite often eras are defined later by reliable sources (historians, journalism). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's all well and good saying "keep", but where's the substantial coverage? It can be covered in the History of WWE article (which clearly needs major improvement), but it's not a defined era and the coverage simply isn't there for its own article. ItsKesha (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:BADGER. You're being obnoxious. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 18:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly no attempt at WP:BEFORE. 161,000 Google results for these terms. More than enough reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Arguments like "it only lasted a few years" show a complete misunderstanding of WP:GNG. A quick search shows that WWE has defined the era [24]. Whether or not the term was used consistently at the time is irrelevant. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. This era of WWE seems pretty defined with a simple Google search. There are still examples of how this talked about today and how it affected the programming. JayJay^{What did I do?} 07:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again not as notable asd the attitude era, fails Wp:Notability on every ground and is extremely poorly written, wrestling and eras have existed since before the formation of NAW in 1948, we can't and nor do we need to write separate individual era articles for each and every era! Dilbaggg (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you're arguing. Of course we could have articles about every era. If they are discussed in reliable secondary sources, they meet GNG. There is no requirement for something to be "as notable" as another article. GNG is all that matters. A quick look at Google search results (which you should have done before starting an AfD) shows that there are sufficient sources to meet the notability guidelines. The quality of the writing is also completely separate from any notability criteria. Please actually read the criteria before responding or nominating other articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dilbaggg, I agreed with many of the points you made in the opening of this AfD, but Gary is right in the response to your last post and you should read arguments to avoid during AfD. You also didn't set up the AfD correctly, I had to finish it for you, so you should think twice before putting up something else for deletion.LM2000 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Gary, I too have done a Google search and yet can't find any significant coverage of the subject. Remember, trivial mentions do not suffice. I'm five pages into Google and I've found two articles, both of which think the "PG Era" is an ongoing thing, both from the same source. So not only does the article not pass GNG, the article in and of itself is massively wrong. ItsKesha (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here are five sources to demonstrate notability: [25] gives an explanation of what the PG Era is and how it came to be. [26] gives comments from Vince McMahon, Steve Austin, and John Cena on the difference between the eras. [27] discusses factors leading to the PG Era. [28] discusses the financial impacts of the switch to the PG Era. [29] (search within for "PG-era") discusses the difficulties of trying to be "diverse and inclusive" while remaining PG. Remember that searches to demonstrate notability need to go beyond a standard Google search. Search Books, Newspapers, Scholar, etc. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've done as you advised Gaz, and searched within all five of your given sources for "PG-Era", so here goes. Source one has no mentions. Source two, none of the three people you mention is even quoted as saying "PG Era", and overall is not even close to significant coverage. Your third source is, being generous, two pages in a book, written in part by a man who says Roman Reigns had a "good cancer". Source four is a paragraph in a 193 page book. Source five is one who's description says the "Reality Era" began in 2011. ItsKesha (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        (1) No mentions other than an entire paragraph about TV-PG and the PG Era. (2) They don't have to say PG Era. They refer to the era. (3) Two pages. Your distraction tactics are a meaningless attempt to change the topic. (4) A paragraph. Doesn't matter how long the book is. (5) Irrelevant when they say the Reality Era began. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        October 15, 2015 Windsor Star: Victoria (Lisa Marie Varon) discusses why she likes the switch to the PG Era. March 29, 2012 Miami Herald: Portrays upcoming match between The Rock and John Cena as a clash between the Attitude and PG Eras. April 1, 2015 Chicago Tribune: Independent wrestler explains the connection between Chris Benoit murder/suicide and transition to PG Era. There's clearly more than enough to establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the follow-up Gaz. Think you accidentally missed the links, but luckily I was able to find two of the three. Here's the article with Varon - one sentence? Has the rest of the article been deleted? Must be an error. Can you tell me the name of the author for the second piece, or the title of the article, or maybe put some quotes here? Thanks in advance Gaz. Finally though, here's the pièce de résistance of your articles - the independent wrestler explaining the connection - Moxie Mollie is her name, you left it off by accident. Here's the entire quote:
        Q: Have you ever seen "The Wrestler"? Mickey Rourke was nominated for an Academy Award for his role in that film?
        A: "Yes. That movie is very accurate as far as how professional wrestling was in the late '70s, the '80s and '90s. That was known as the 'Attitude Era.' It was like the Wild West. People were cussing, there was nudity. Back then, people were on steroids and painkillers. They were wrestling high even when on television. Chris Benoit, a famous wrestler, went crazy and murdered himself and his family. Since then, they have instated a wellness policy. Today, you can't be on steroids. You can't even have had a drink within 16 hours of a match. This is a much healthier, drug-free and family-friendly 'PG' era of professional wrestling."
        There's clearly actually very significant coverage as you are aptly demonstrating! ItsKesha (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment Shouldn't this be titled TV-PG Era if kept? The Motion Picture Association holds a registered trademark on the "PG" rating initialism alone, and WWE programs are rated under the TV Parental Guidelines, not the MPA system. Nate • (chatter) 20:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't WP:COMMONNAME be a factor here? I'm still not convinced this was officially a thing in the first place, but it was something people talked about and they never called it the "TV-PG era", even if that would have been a technically more accurate title.LM2000 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I Agee that the current title is the common name and if kept should remain as is.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As other user said, there are sources about the era (even if the WWE product stills PG, the era ended). The era existed and is notable [30] About the name change, I have seen PG Era, but never TV-PG era
Keep Well known era of the WWE, just like the Ruthless Aggression Era, New Generation Era and Attitude Era.★Trekker (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: While I have identified quite a few reliable sources above, I have not yet added them to the article. I have no problem with doing so, but I have been burned too many times before by spending hours adding sources only to have an admin close the discussion and delete the article based on the number of delete votes from an early stage in the discussion (before the sources were added). I ask that you respect WP:NOTIMELIMIT and acknowledge that the existence of the sources gives the subject notability and that the sources can be added after the discussion closes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some, but not all, of the sources that you included earlier. Just to make it clear to closing admin, I struck my previous delete vote and am now solidly Keep.LM2000 (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Bear in mind that none of the sources linked above actually provide substantial coverage of this subject. In the sources, it's only ever mentioned in passing and with very little analysis or detail. ItsKesha (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While this is PG Era, WWE was PG before 1997 and in 2008 Raw and Raw related Specials shifted to PG, but SmackDown carried TV-PG ratings much longer before that, also PG Era is also alternatively known as Universe Era as per WWE 2k14 games sources. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I made this point in my first comment when I !voted delete. The "PG Era" always seemed like a phrase used by some fans to attack the rating itself, but they'd been PG before so I've never understood that line of thought. However, the company did make a major shift towards family friendly programming in 2008 and that has received plenty of coverage. Many sources even use the "PG Era" name because it stuck so well that it's probably WP:COMMONNAME. "Universe Era" should redirect to this article.LM2000 (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This page bears little resemblance to the one nominated for discussion. Compare diffs: [31]. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opal|zukor^(discuss) 12:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like GaryColemanFan notes, it's a much improved page. I would have wanted to delete the original page, but I don't mind well-written versions of what some dismiss as "cruft." Real concept understood by those familiar with it, and this appears to be the common name. Cool Hand Luke 17:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP and ItsKesha. Additionally I think there's a lot of WP:SYNTH going on here (much like in The Reality Era article) where citations are being tied together to make this period appear more defined than it actually is. — Czello 18:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I don't understand the "per x" vote. They constructed their arguments and voted delete based on a completely different article than the one that exists now. Do you have any policy-based concerns about the current article? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the OP, Dilbaggg has since made several additions to the article. Do you still support deletion Dilbaggg?LM2000 (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alexander the Great. The general consensus here is that a stand-alone article is not merited. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of Asia[edit]

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

Only a single reference to Britannica, totally unnecessary as a standalone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reason for standalone article, can be added as one of Alexander's many titles if not there already. Mztourist (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It could be expanded into a standalone article. There are multiple papers dealing with Alexander's use of the title King (or Lord) of Asia. If someone wishes to write in any depth on this, they should do it here not at Alexander's article, which is a 176,218-byte long GA. Srnec (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A prelimnary search did not find any sources that discussed the title "Lord of Asia" specifically, @Srnec: can you name the sources in question? Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-pasting Google's citations:

Sullivan, Vickie. "Alexander the Great as “Lord of Asia” and Rome as His Successor in Machiavelli's Prince." The Review of Politics 75.4 (2013): 515-537.
Hammond, Nicholas GL. "The Kingdom of Asia and the Persian Throne." Antichthon 20.1986 (1986): 73.
Nawotka, Krzysztof. "Persia, Alexander the Great and the Kingdom of Asia." Klio 94.2 (2012): 348-356.
Mavrojannis, Theodoros. "ALEXANDER THE GREAT «KING OF ASIA» AT ARBELA AND BABYLON IN OCTOBER 331 BC HIS ECUMENICAL MACEDONIAN-‐‑PERSIAN IDEOLOGY." rivista di geografia storica del mondo antico e di storia della geografia (2017): 121.
FREDRICKSMEYER, ERNST. "Kingship of Asia." Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction (2002): 136.

These are just works that directly reference the title (king or lord of Asia) in the title (of the paper). This does not include any works which discuss the title in any depth without referring to it in their titles. Clearly there is enough to sustain an article. Srnec (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Nawotka, 2012 indicates that the title was effectively the Greek synonym for "King of the Persian Empire". Fredricksmeyer suggests that rather than representing a continuation of the Persian empire, the adoption of the title marks a clean break between the Persian Empire and Alexander's. This is probably worth a small paragraph in the main Alexander article or maybe in Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Empire, but I don't think that it is necessary as a standalone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anything we need to say about this can adequately be said on the article on Alexander the Great. There is no need for a seperate ariticle on this title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in why you think we need to say so little? If scholars can devote pages to it, surely we can devote a few paragraphs. And yet a few more paragraphs are not what Alexander the Great needs at 176,218 bytes. Srnec (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Jack Pack Lambert. Agricolae (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alexander the Great. The article indicates that this was a title given to Alexander and held by two successors who were only titular kings; also claimed by certain successor dynasties, without exercising authority as such. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect although it is very important, it does not merit a single article, especially one this short. EPIC STYLE ^{(LET'S TALK)} 02:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In Greek it's mainly a description: "κύριος του/της" = lord/king/sovereign etc of (whatever). Cf. this, where a reference to Antigonus I Monophthalmus as "κύριος τῆς Ἀσίας" (lord of Asia), and Demetrius I of Macedon as "κύριος τῆς Συρίας, τῆς Φοινίκης καὶ τῆς Κύπρου" (lord of Syria, Phoinike and Cyprus). This is also pretty obvious from the aforementioned article of Vickie Sullivan: in their conclusion writes "The response that arises from this reading of the work is that although his conquest, which made him “lord of Asia” …" (op.cit., p.537); “lord of Asia”, lord without capital L and the term in (what look to me as) scare quotes. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we were only talking about the phrase "lord of Asia", you would be right. But this article is clearly about Alexander's title, which is more usually given as "king of Asia" (basileus tes Asias). Nor was this a description. Plutarch says he was "proclaimed" with this title in a ceremony. I'm surprised by the delete !votes given how much has been written about the title and its claims (far more than what I pasted above). Filling out this article would not be at all difficult. Srnec (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plutarch in Alexander, 18.8 (or 18.5 in some eds.) writes: "Ἀλέξανδρον δὲ τῆς μὲν Ἀσίας κρατήσειν, ὥσπερ ἐκράτησε Δαρεῖος, ἐξ ἀστάνδου βασιλεὺς γενόμενος", that Alexander would rule Asia (verb κρατήσειν = το become lord, king, ruler) = "Alexander would be master of Asia, just as Dareius became its master when he was made king instead of royal courier" (English transl. by Bernadotte Perrin, available at perseus.tufts.edu). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Plut. Alex. 34.1. Srnec (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Τοῦτο τῆς μάχης ἐκείνης λαβούσης τὸ πέρας, ἡ μὲν ἀρχὴ παντάπασιν ἡ Περσῶν ἐδόκει καταλελύσθαι, βασιλεὺς δὲ τῆς Ἀσίας Ἀλέξανδρος ἀνηγορευμένος, ἔθυε τοῖς θεοῖς μεγαλοπρεπῶς, καὶ τοῖς φίλοις ἐδωρεῖτο πλούτους καὶ οἴκους καὶ ἡγεμονίας" = The battle having had this issue, the empire of the Persians was thought to be utterly dissolved, and Alexander, proclaimed king of Asia, made magnificent sacrifices to the gods and rewarded his friends with wealth, estates, and provinces [32]. What that suppose to prove, beyond the apparent fact ? Alexander, after beating the Persians ("the enemy had been utterly defeated and was in flight"; Plut. Alex. 33.7) became the ruler of their Empire, king, ruler of "Asia". So, mentioning this deserves an article in WP ? ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of the primary source is of no use here. Arrian quotes a letter of Alexander to Darius in which he asks to be addressed as king of Asia. Is this a mere description? The title deserves an article because its meaning has been discussed extensively by scholars. Above I cited five papers that come up on Google Scholar because they have the title in English in their title. That does not include papers about the subject which do not reference the title explicitly in their title, papers not in English and any books that devote several paragraphs or pages to the subject. So, for example, I did not cite:

F. Muccioli, "‘Il re dell’Asia’: ideologia e propaganda da Alessandro Magno a Mitridate VI", Simblos. Scritti di storia antica 4 (2004), pp. 105-158. (53 pages!)
Paul J. Kosmin, The Land of the Elephant Kings (HUP, 2014), at pp. 121–28.
Fredricksmeyer, Ernst A. "Alexander, Zeus Ammon, and the conquest of Asia." Transactions of the American Philological Association 121 (1991): 199-214.

It easily meets WP:N. That is all. Srnec (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; that is just your way of interpreting things (as I see it). Once it's "king of Asia"; another time "master" or "lord", and most of the times with no capital initial in the title. One way or another there is no reason for a standalone article. I can appreciate your reasoning for the opposite, but this is my opinion; to me it is a sound judgment on the subject, and it is not going to change. Anyway, all arguments, for or against, are well presented and extensively explaned, so there is no reason to keep this discussion going on. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have a template full of articles on ancient West Asian titulature at Template:Ancient Mesopotamian royal titles, so one article on Alexander's title hardly seems out of place. Srnec (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opal|zukor^(discuss) 12:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alexander the Great. Everything in this article is better included in the target. There is no properly sourced material to merge and unsourced material should not be inserted into other articles. // Timothy :: talk 11:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel King[edit]

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

Does not satisfy GNG. – DarkGlow (✉) 11:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 11:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one indepdent source is not the thing needed to add towards passing GNG, and 1 source alone will never lead to the passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Juzaerul Jasmi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. It has already once been deleted for the same reason (nomination). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer who does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails all relevant criteria; does not play at fully professional level so no strong argument for drafytifying Spiderone 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. S. Rajmohan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Making records doesn't make anyone inherently noble. Wholey promotional article linked to the personal website and social media. Wikipedia almost became a record book register! RationalPuff (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable chef. The article lacks the level of reliable sources we need to show that someone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Iced Earth. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something Wicked Saga[edit]

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

Large, almost entirely unreferenced content fork from Iced Earth. No evidence that this is a notable subject in its own right. Cripesohblimey (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Iced Earth which at least mentions it. No evidence the story has stand-alone notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iced Earth. Not notable on its own. By the way, the Swedish article isn't even about this story, it's about their mascot. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humberto Acosta-Rosario[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Nothing notable about being only remaining soldier from a particular U.S. state or territory to be unaccounted from the Vietnam War. He is one of 1585 Americans unaccounted for from the Vietnam War, they don't each deserve a page. His story is more than adequately covered on Puerto Ricans in the Vietnam War and List of Puerto Ricans missing in action in the Vietnam War. Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability guidelines. Eyebeller 10:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines. This only x that meets y criteria has gone to the level of just plain craziness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It totally wrong that a soldier must be awarded more then one Navy Cross to be notable. Who came up with that idea? The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tony the Marine (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is related discussion about this nomination here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71#Nomination_of_Jorge_Otero_Barreto_for_deletion Mercy11 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, which in this case you specifically named in my "talk" page "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. That is not relevant for Acosta-Rosario as he is missing and not a Navy Cross recipient. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant content from a related discussion page.
The relevant information below comes from the WP page here I view this and the above AfD's as a sudden agenda of personal attacks on the articles which are about "Hispanic" war heroes. This never happened before and what is cited as a reason for the nominations is an essay not policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] You have created a number of pages about people who do not satisfy WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG and therefore are not notable. Being the first Puerto Rican/Hispanic to do X does not establish notability. That's why these pages are being put up for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Really? So it is about the pages that I created and not what others have created? Let me tell you the person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, in this case you specifically name "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. I ask myself, what is the use of continuing in this project when after so many years the articles which have been created with hard work following the guidelines come under attack and are nominated for deletion? Tony the Marine (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Tony. Unless this is an approved decision to remove every 'minor' American hero regardless of background from the encyclopedia then it should not begin with minority Americans. They are underrepresented in American history as it is. Let them be the last to be removed if at all.Dmercado (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography. While WP:SOLDIER is just an Essay it sets out presumptions as to military notability, which if the person has SIGCOV in multiple RS means that they deserve a page. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. GNG applies to everyone regardless of nationality and User:Marine 69-71 as an Admin should know that. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Its a consensus, you are welcome to try to argue it at AFD or elsewhere.Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comment - User:Letter and User:Mztourist seem to be supporting each other's delete nominations: one nominating the article for delete and the other user quickly agreeing to its deletion. I'll explain, (from what I've spotchecked) when User:Letter nominates the soldier article for deletion, Mztourist agrees on delete and vice versa. To nomination closer: If anything, remember that the delete is not a "count" vote. The two users agreeing on all deletion of specific soldier article nominations seems strange to me. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Exactly, I have been accused of "canvassing" when it seems as if the two users mentioned have teamed up to eliminate articles about our heroes only because according to an essay they were not notable for being awarded one of the second highest military decoration of the United States. Instead it should be taken into account that the heroic actions that they made would in another case merit the Medal of Honor. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant content from a related discussion page.

The relevant information below comes from the WP page here

I view this and the above AfD's as a sudden agenda of personal attacks on the articles which are about "Hispanic" war heroes. This never happened before and what is cited as a reason for the nominations is an essay not policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have created a number of pages about people who do not satisfy WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG and therefore are not notable. Being the first Puerto Rican/Hispanic to do X does not establish notability. That's why these pages are being put up for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Really? So it is about the pages that I created and not what others have created? Let me tell you the person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, in this case you specifically name "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. I ask myself, what is the use of continuing in this project when after so many years the articles which have been created with hard work following the guidelines come under attack and are nominated for deletion? Tony the Marine (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with Tony. Unless this is an approved decision to remove every 'minor' American hero regardless of background from the encyclopedia then it should not begin with minority Americans. They are underrepresented in American history as it is. Let them be the last to be removed if at all.Dmercado (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography. While WP:SOLDIER is just an Essay it sets out presumptions as to military notability, which if the person has SIGCOV in multiple RS means that they deserve a page. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. GNG applies to everyone regardless of nationality and User:Marine 69-71 as an Admin should know that. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its a consensus, you are welcome to try to argue it at AFD or elsewhere.Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Letter and User:Mztourist seem to be supporting each other's delete nominations: one nominating the article for delete and the other user quickly agreeing to its deletion. I'll explain, (from what I've spotchecked) when User:Letter nominates the soldier article for deletion, Mztourist agrees on delete and vice versa. To nomination closer: If anything, remember that the delete is not a "count" vote. The two users agreeing on all deletion of specific soldier article nominations seems strange to me. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I have been accused of "canvassing" when it seems as if the two users mentioned have teamed up to eliminate articles about our heroes only because according to an essay they were not notable for being awarded one of the second highest military decoration of the United States. Instead it should be taken into account that the heroic actions that they made would in another case merit the Medal of Honor. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A nomination using the WP:NSOLDIER essay as a delete criteria? Since when do we make delete decisions based on an WP:SPS as non-notable as a WP essay? What is a WP essay if it isn't a piece of writing expressing an editor's personal POV with no oversight by a notable editorial board of SMEs nor peer-reviewed by experts qualified in the branch on knowledge in question? I frown upon arguments made based on WP essays as if they were anything more than someone's desperate attempt to make his/her views known at WP after failing to get his/her ideas approved by the community at large and after failing to get those ideas into one of WP's WP:PG. Mercy11 (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should familiarize yourself with the criteria used in assessing Military-related deletion discussions. I referred to both SOLDIER and GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than insulting editors' intelligence or reading ability, you should have already stepped aside and allow the nomination to run its course rather than jumping in everytime an editor makes a comment you don't like. Mercy11 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make policy-based arguments. Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow you appear to have developed an air of superiority over the rest of us here, empowering yourself now with the right to tell us what we "should" do or "need" to do. I am not sure you understood my previous comment: I don't appreciate you telling me what I should or should not do, nor appreciate you telling me what I need or need not do. Got it now? And, no, that was a rhetorical question, a response isn't needed. Mercy11 (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my earlier comment, you (and anyone else participating in a deletion discussion) need to make policy based arguments. You have already been warned by another User about making personal attacks on the Users who developed the WP:SOLDIER consensus, which is relevant for military deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan T. Yale[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Corporal posthumously awarded the Navy Cross is not notable. Mztourist (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage in sources is WP:TRIVIAL. Eyebeller 10:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really need to nip this mass creation of articles on non-notable soldiers in the bud. We really, really, really need to start requiring that all new articles go through the Articles for Creation process. It is crazily long past the time when we need to rectify the situation where it is far, far easier to create articles than to delete them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perdu[edit]

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

Disambiguation page whose entries are all WP:PARTIAL title matches. The entry "Mont Perdu" is French for the common name of Monte Perdido. —Bagumba (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monte Perdido. I'd think this mountain is likely to be known simply as "Perdu" in French. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but this is English Wikipedia. So the question is how likely an English speaker will see or hear French Perdu—not the full Mont Perdu—and come to English WP entering only "Perdu"?—Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not necessary disambiguation, I agree with the reasoning above so no redirect. Eyebeller 10:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, there's no primary topic for an extremely common French word and there's no common English meaning of the word either. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this invalid disambiguation page consisting only of partial title matches. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The analysis is correct. I verified that Monte Perdido is not on the border. It's somewhat into Spain and difficult to reach from France. gidonb (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raed Abu Fatean[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG. References provided are (1) anghami music application, (2) music website (like SoundCloud), (3) blog, (4+5+9+11) not work, (6+7) music website, (8) iTunes app and (10) unreliable website talking about "Raed Abu Fatean son". Also, this article deleted twice on arwiki, and created by LTA (Paid user). --Alaa :)..! 08:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable poet.Fatzaof (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yeshiva University. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva University High School for Girls[edit]

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

Can't establish independent notability - The only thing that maybe qualifies was a little written about controversy for the brother school. The controversy was well written about for the affiliated college, Yeshiva University, but not the high school and especially not the Girls' high school. Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Just by contrast, the article on the brother school, Yeshiva University High School for Boys, while not well-written or well-cited, definitely has the potential to be. It has multiple reliable independent sources talking about it from the New York Times onward. Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Yeshiva University. Redirects are cheap, WP:ATD is policy and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES indicates that's what we usually do in this situation. 174.212.222.202 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After HzH's rewrite of 28 December 2020‎. Sandstein 07:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amino acid-based formula[edit]

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

Thinly-veiled advertisement page with the only source being a company selling a version of the product the article discusses. The topic might be notable but there's nothing useful here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotion. When I just saw the title, I thought it might be something along the lines of a chemical formula, but for amino-acid biochemistry. Now that's something that could be notable, but this isn't that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement posing as an article. Given the subject matter, sourcing would have to be up to the WP:MEDRS standard, and it very much isn't. Even if the topic could be better documented, WP:TNT would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Commment~~ There appear to be many academic articles on the subject - e.g. [33][34][35][36], it would make this a valid topic for an article. Article needs improving with better sourcing, but it does not appear to be advert to me - just need to delete one sentence if that is a concern, and there isn't much in the article to TNT. Leaning keep but the article do need editors who can make improvement to it. Hzh (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes to article to remove anything that may be problematic. No point in deleting a notable subject that may be useful for those looking for information on the subject, and since it is only a small article, it does not require a large rewrite. It can be further expanded since there is quite a bit of information out there, maybe someone else can do it. Changed to keep. Hzh (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I no longer care about deleting this article, since sources were added and promotional material removed, though I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to withdraw it at this time. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article in its original state was unacceptable, but Hzh rewrote it in a way that addresses the article's former deficiencies. It is a sufficiently notable topic and it is currently compliant with WP:RSMED. Reba16 (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Geschichte (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultras Suryoye Göteborg[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability criteria. Could not find any reliable sources. Brought for AFD because speedy deletion was declined since this is a long standing article Kashmorwiki (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kashmorwiki (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kashmorwiki (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Assyriska BK - this article adds little to nothing on top of what is already in that article Spiderone 12:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - not independently notable. Giant Snowman 12:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main club page RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main club article. Nigej (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Ganju[edit]

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

Non notable business executive with sources almost entirely based on routine PR announcements. Google search of him doesn't turn up sources that would show he passes WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need to quickly nip such promotional articles in the bud.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Fails WP:BASIC. Appointment in an organisation does not inherently make anyone noble. RationalPuff (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanity page. FalconK (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a run of the mill business person, the manager of a famous website for its India market. [[WP:GNG|How is that notable? Bearian (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Levi[edit]

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

This article was tagged for WP:PROD as it fails WP:NHOCKEY. However the tag was removed, but I still contend that he fails notability. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2021 (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/2021 January 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still contend that the player more than passes GNG, through multiple sources focusing on him. There is even a newspaper article that discusses his childhood background. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to disagree with the nominator here. Independent reliable sources give the subject significant coverage enough to pass the basic WP:N guideline. Inclusion is met regardless of any presumed notability by a SNG. Even Sports Illustrated jumped in the fray. Beyond that, full feature articles in CBC, TSN, Sporting News, Fox Sports as well as multiple Jewish specific media outlets more than get him over GNG, forget any SNG. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If WP:NHOCKEY is used to justify deletion of this page, the same would have to be done for pretty much every single player here 2021 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships rosters, including the ones who won awards at the tournament: 2021 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships#Awards. In terms of notability, Levi was the most notable player of the tournament, at least in the Canadian media. -- Wikkiwonkk (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikkiwonkk: I am undecided about his case for GNG, but I think if you look a little more carefully you will discover that he is the only award winner from the junior tournament that does not meet NHOCKEY. The majority of players at the world juniors are in the WP:TOOSOON category, which I believe includes Levi, but many from the rosters of the contenders do qualify under NHOCKEY, so I am not sure what your point is. Usually a discussion for inclusion should cite the sources that validate their inclusion, that has not happened yet. I would like to see the sources @Tsistunagiska: is alluding to before deciding.18abruce (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@18abruce: I seriously misread part of the NHOCKEY list, so you are right, the number of players on the 2021 rosters that do not meet the criteria is about ten, much smaller than I first thought. My bad, thanks for prodding me to take a closer look. -- Wikkiwonkk (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18abruce Wikipedia requires that every editor who chooses to !vote on an AfD conduct a WP:BEFORE search and expects that those cognizant enough to edit and create articles on the encyclopedia should also be able to read and comprehend the information they find in doing said search. We are not supposed to only look at the sources provided within the article. Do the search and make your own evaluation. You got this. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 13:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG with significant coverage from articles about him in reliable sources, including sources as diverse as Sports Illustrated and The Jerusalem Post. NHOCKEY is irrelevant once GNG is passed. Rlendog (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak delete. Generally, I'd say that Levi currently fails to reach notability as outlined in WP:NHOCKEY. However, I also think his article features independent reliable sources which can be seen as a good argument to keep the article. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not reaching the criteria of NHOCKEY is not in itself a reason to delete the article. according to NSPORT, of which NHOCKEY is one element: "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." So typically a subject that fails NHOCKEY would likely not meet our general notability criteria, but for those that happen to pass our general notability criteria failing NHOCKEY gives no reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to know, thanks for sharing that information with me. I'm inclined to change my opinion to keep for this article. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burlesque (band)[edit]

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

A hard name to search but even searches including band member names resulted in nothing. Does not meet WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Short-lived pub rock band that came and went without any attention. Tagged for notability and sources since 2009. The archived article doesn't look too reliable (it is obviously about the band, but the look of the site is just not reliable). Myspace - no comment. The nom is right about the difficulty of searching with this name. This time, the album titles are bland as well, so searching with them will result in many other stuff being returned, but very few will be about them. Maybe there are coverage in some books, but I don't know. Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pushing it in terms of general notability, though suitable for a specialist Fandom site. RobinCarmody (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hype House[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, non notable group of TikTok users. Does not demonstrage notability. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Poorly sourced as in The New York Times, Forbes and Business Insider? I don't get where you're coming from. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nkon21: While I agree the article should be kept, Forbes articles written by "contributors" such as the one cited are unreliable, and Business Insider is listed as situational and is currently undergoing another RfC. SK2242 (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article is properly sourced and there has been significant coverage of the group, also many of the members are notable. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I was in the belief that when a given topic (whatever the topic is) was covered by the New York Times and Forbes, then it was notable. We need to change our guidelines about notability if it's not the case anymore. --Deansfa (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The article is reliably sourced and clearly demonstrates its subject's notability. (See WP:GNG.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG:
1. Walker, Harriet (April 11, 2020). "TikTok's Hype House: home of Chase Hudson, Charli D'Amelio and friends". The Times. Retrieved January 8, 2021.
2. "Hype House TikTokers called out for being bad influencers". CBC Kids News. July 29, 2020. Retrieved January 8, 2021.
3. Lorenz, Taylor (July 9, 2020). "It Looks Like a Reality Show. Why Not Just Make It One?". The New York Times. Retrieved January 8, 2021.
4. Schroeder, Audra (January 6, 2020). "The TikTok Hype House is now a thing—here's what you need to know". The Daily Dot. Retrieved January 8, 2021.
There is also a wealth of coverage from situational and reliability-undiscussed sources such as Seventeen, Insider and Tubefilter. SK2242 (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A house where internet-famous children film their TikTok videos does not meet WP:NBUILDING. KidAd talk 00:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KidAd: The article is about the group, not the house, and me and others have clearly demonstrated it meets GNG. SK2242 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Huddy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not demonstrate notability of their own accord. Perhaps some information could be merged into the page for Charli D'Amelio. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: yes he does demonstrate notability with significant coverage from several reliable sources. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: significant coverage from several reliable sources. --Deansfa (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG:
1. Satenstein, Liana (September 2, 2020). "A Day in the Life of a TikTok Stylist". Vogue. Condé Nast. Retrieved January 9, 2021. - Not the main topic but still good coverage
2. Guglielmi, Jodi (June 10, 2020). "Charli D'Amelio and Chase Hudson Reunite on TikTok 2 Months After Split". People. Meredith Corporation. Retrieved January 9, 2021.
3. 3. Lorenz, Taylor (July 9, 2020). "It Looks Like a Reality Show. Why Not Just Make It One?". The New York Times. Retrieved January 9, 2021. - Again not the main topic but still good coverage. Add the hundreds of articles from situational and reliability-undiscussed sources and this is easily notable. SK2242 (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep without prejudice to a near-future relist. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avani Gregg[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources, lack of notability beyond having many followers on TikTok. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tentative keep: A quick google search shows a large number of non-self published sources (that are admittedly fairly low quality special interest publications) [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. As notability (artists) failed consensus, the closest guidelines I can see for this subject would be WP:NMUSIC, which suggest that "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" are notable, provided that they are not "Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves", or "Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, eg booking details", or "Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.". From this, and from the continuing secondary source coverage of the suspect, I'm tenatively inclined to support a keep for this article, despite the severe apprehensions I have about celebrity and e-fame articles in general. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 05:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question Out of curiosity - why do you think Wikipedia:Notability (music) is most appropriate - because TikTok is largely considered a music app? CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hi! I felt that the Wikipedia:Notability (music) was an appropriate guideline for precisely that reason. The other guideline that would apply IMO would be wp:author, but that guideline is rather sparse. There is no separate guideline for e-famous people yet either, so I just picked the one that seemed closest. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 06:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ENT. She has a large fanbase, a role in Chicken Girls, and an upcoming memoir through a reputable publisher. She's won a Shorty Award and was recognized by Forbes 30 under 30. This is all demonstrated in reliable sources: [43][44][45][46][47]. TJMSmith (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's one of the most followed person on Tiktok. --Deansfa (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is established, does that make her article notable in and of itself? CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you disqualified yourself by pretending that a given subject with significant coverage including the New York Times and Forbes was poorly sourced. There's really no point at trying to find coverage here since it doesn't matter to you. --Deansfa (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why resorting to personal attacks is necessary - another user pointed out those articles may be sponsored content, rendering them unreliable - but that is on a different AfD. This is the AfD for Avani Gregg. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's only 1 piece of significant coverage from a source confirmed reliable:
Perez, Lexy (September 10, 2020). "TikTok Star Avani Gregg to Release Memoir". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved January 9, 2020.
There is also the situational Insider and the undiscussed Seventeen. If there isn’t any better coverage a while from now I would endorse another AfD. SK2242 (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete She was only in a few episodes of one season of Chicken Girls, and only one of the stars of this webseries has an article, so this acting role does not establish notability. Forbes names over 900 people to its various 30/30 lists every year, so this does not establish notability either. Nor does having a lot of followers. Reywas92^Talk 22:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seventeen and Hollywood reporter are notable publications, but a few more would have been better. Peter303x (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" side does not address the obvious problems with the sources. Sandstein 13:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atom Bond[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NTELEVISION. None of the sources in the article have WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: TimothyBlue The article has got good sources and at least one source that isn't related to the topic and the page and sources are reliable and have sufficient coverage which meets WP:SIGCOV and all those other 'policies'/rules/guidelines. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This vote was malformed and has been fixed. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source evaluation table: // Timothy :: talk 13:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Evaluation
Atom Bond (TV Series 1999–2017) - IMDb	IMDB database entry page
Watch Atom Bond: The Atom with the Golden Electron	Video Steam. No SIGCOV, only Program Information
Atom Bond. ABC iview	Video Steam. No SIGCOV, only Program Information
Atom Bond. TV Education	Video Steam. No SIGCOV, only Program Information
Atom Bond: The Atom with the Golden Electron · British Universities Film & Video Council	Database listing, no SIGCOV, only brief abstract
Atom Bond - Clip - YouTube	Video clip of the show on the SpiceyNacho Youtube channel
Video Details - ClickView Library of Educational Videos	Database listing, no SIGCOV, only brief abstract

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are know seven sources, not six.

Added IMDB database entry to above source table. // Timothy :: talk 02:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No references that are reliable sources with significant coverage. No potential redirect targets. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well written, has at least one good source. Norman_Roswin_Rolf_Birkner (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Norman_Roswin_Rolf_Birkner, which source(s) do you think have SIGCOV? Thanks, // Timothy :: talk 02:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: TimothyBlue The IMDb date listing to me is a SIGCOV Source, also keep in mind clips of the show could be listed as sources for the characters and episodes section of the article and could be SIGcOV however they're probably considered unreliable or to close to the subject. Norman_Roswin_Rolf_Birkner (talk) 6:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Norman Roswin Rolf Birkner: IMDb is not a reliable source per WP:IMDB and WP:IMDBREF. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any real coverage. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lux, Nevada[edit]

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

Topos show an isolated railroad point with no real development there. Meanwhile, Carlson evidently calls it a railroad station, and the newspapers.com hits don't appear relevant. Only Gbooks references are stuff like this for a vague railroad point. I don't think WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG are met here. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect Similarly, I can't find any reliable secondary sources describing the this topic in any detail (results from the weather network don't count towards notability, naturally). The only thing that seems to be going on there is a lot of truck stop activity [48]. Satelite imagery also shows that the site is simply a road, next to a reservoir/pond. At any rate, we can't use these sources for any kind of article salvaging since that would be wp:OR. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 06:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Carson and Colorado Railway. As per my edits to Talk:Lux, Nevada: "Lux is probably not notable. Carlson states that it was a non-agency station. Gamett and Paher do not list Lux as having a post office. Lux is not listed in http://ghosttowns.com. Searching newspapers.com only finds mentions of Mr. Lux, for whom the station was named and railroad references." Lux, Nevada was a station, see WP:STATION. For details about Charles Lux, see Henry Miller (rancher). As Lux, Nevada has no legal recognition and no non-trivial coverage, it meets neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carson and Colorado Railway.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'm changing my delete to Redirect. Cxbrx (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that's a good idea, I'd support a redirect as well. If I'd thought of that earlier, that would have saved us a discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a redirect, come to think of it. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 03:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguing about heroics can't overcome WP:NSOLDIER, which, like it or not, is the accepted standard for military personnel. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Mercado Jr.[edit]

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

Utterly fails WP:NSOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 04:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, nothing notable about parachuting from a plane in WWII. Mztourist (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This aviator was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, a military award and decoration of the United States Armed Forces. This medal was awarded to any person who, after April 6, 1917, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Air Force, distinguished himself by single acts of heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. Both heroism and extraordinary achievement are entirely distinctive, involving operations that are not routine. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Distinguished Flying Cross (United States) doesn't come close to satisfying #1 of WP:SOLDIER, it ranks 6th in order of precedence. Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He literally was awarded a medal that had thousands of recipients for WW2 alone. He also parachuted out of a plane. Very notable. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained above, the award he received is not even close to being one that grants a recipient notability, and there is no other sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It totally wrong that a soldier must be awarded more then one Distinguished Flying Cross to be notable. Who came up with that idea? The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is related discussion about this nomination here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71#Nomination_of_Jorge_Otero_Barreto_for_deletion Mercy11 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, which in this case you specifically named in my "talk" page "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then, but that is irrelevant here as Mercado Jr.'s DFC would never be upgraded to an MoH. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The award of a single Distinguished Flying Cross (United States) is not enough to establish notability. The DFC is fairly low in precedence, falling under the Legion of Merit. In addition, this article was primarily written by the subject's son, which may possibly bring up conflict of interest issues. While the son is quite understandably proud of his father, I don't believe this article establishes sufficient evidence for it to be included in Wikipedia. Roam41 (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no doubt a hero but as per previous comments DFC not sufficiently notable to qualify and I'm not seeing much in the literature. I note that some sources are primary and for at least two others, "The Hard Luck 492nd" and "Misburg" he isn't even mentioned. Zawed (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant content from a related discussion page.
The relevant information below comes from the WP page here I view this and the above AfD's as a sudden agenda of personal attacks on the articles which are about "Hispanic" war heroes. This never happened before and what is cited as a reason for the nominations is an essay not policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] You have created a number of pages about people who do not satisfy WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG and therefore are not notable. Being the first Puerto Rican/Hispanic to do X does not establish notability. That's why these pages are being put up for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Really? So it is about the pages that I created and not what others have created? Let me tell you the person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, in this case you specifically name "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. I ask myself, what is the use of continuing in this project when after so many years the articles which have been created with hard work following the guidelines come under attack and are nominated for deletion? Tony the Marine (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Tony. Unless this is an approved decision to remove every 'minor' American hero regardless of background from the encyclopedia then it should not begin with minority Americans. They are underrepresented in American history as it is. Let them be the last to be removed if at all.Dmercado (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography. While WP:SOLDIER is just an Essay it sets out presumptions as to military notability, which if the person has SIGCOV in multiple RS means that they deserve a page. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. GNG applies to everyone regardless of nationality and User:Marine 69-71 as an Admin should know that. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Its a consensus, you are welcome to try to argue it at AFD or elsewhere.Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comment - User:Letter and User:Mztourist seem to be supporting each other's delete nominations: one nominating the article for delete and the other user quickly agreeing to its deletion. I'll explain, (from what I've spotchecked) when User:Letter nominates the soldier article for deletion, Mztourist agrees on delete and vice versa. To nomination closer: If anything, remember that the delete is not a "count" vote. The two users agreeing on all deletion of specific soldier article nominations seems strange to me. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Exactly, I have been accused of "canvassing" when it seems as if the two users mentioned have teamed up to eliminate articles about our heroes only because according to an essay they were not notable for being awarded one of the second highest military decoration of the United States. Instead it should be taken into account that the heroic actions that they made would in another case merit the Medal of Honor. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant content from a related discussion page.

The relevant information below comes from the WP page here

I view this and the above AfD's as a sudden agenda of personal attacks on the articles which are about "Hispanic" war heroes. This never happened before and what is cited as a reason for the nominations is an essay not policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have created a number of pages about people who do not satisfy WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG and therefore are not notable. Being the first Puerto Rican/Hispanic to do X does not establish notability. That's why these pages are being put up for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Really? So it is about the pages that I created and not what others have created? Let me tell you the person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, in this case you specifically name "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. I ask myself, what is the use of continuing in this project when after so many years the articles which have been created with hard work following the guidelines come under attack and are nominated for deletion? Tony the Marine (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with Tony. Unless this is an approved decision to remove every 'minor' American hero regardless of background from the encyclopedia then it should not begin with minority Americans. They are underrepresented in American history as it is. Let them be the last to be removed if at all.Dmercado (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography. While WP:SOLDIER is just an Essay it sets out presumptions as to military notability, which if the person has SIGCOV in multiple RS means that they deserve a page. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. GNG applies to everyone regardless of nationality and User:Marine 69-71 as an Admin should know that. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its a consensus, you are welcome to try to argue it at AFD or elsewhere.Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Letter and User:Mztourist seem to be supporting each other's delete nominations: one nominating the article for delete and the other user quickly agreeing to its deletion. I'll explain, (from what I've spotchecked) when User:Letter nominates the soldier article for deletion, Mztourist agrees on delete and vice versa. To nomination closer: If anything, remember that the delete is not a "count" vote. The two users agreeing on all deletion of specific soldier article nominations seems strange to me. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I have been accused of "canvassing" when it seems as if the two users mentioned have teamed up to eliminate articles about our heroes only because according to an essay they were not notable for being awarded one of the second highest military decoration of the United States. Instead it should be taken into account that the heroic actions that they made would in another case merit the Medal of Honor. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A nomination using the WP:NSOLDIER essay as a delete criteria? Since when do we make delete decisions based on an WP:SPS as non-notable as a WP essay? What is a WP essay if it isn't a piece of writing expressing an editor's personal POV with no oversight by a notable editorial board of SMEs nor peer-reviewed by experts qualified in the branch on knowledge in question? I frown upon arguments made based on WP essays as if they were anything more than someone's desperate attempt to make his/her views known at WP after failing to get his/her ideas approved by the community at large and after failing to get those ideas into one of WP's WP:PG. Mercy11 (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should familiarize yourself with the criteria used in assessing Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The demonstrated lack of understanding at what "SPS" - and notability - even means is also very disturbing, as is the bad faith being assumed, the aspersions being cast and the lack of understanding of how supplemental notability guidelines even work (just for the record they're neither "an editor's personal POV" or "someone's desperate attempt"). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: rather than insulting editors' intelligence or reading ability, you should have already stepped aside and allow the nomination to run its course rather than jumping in everytime an editor makes a comment you don't like. Mercy11 (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was both wildly assuming bad faith and uncivil, in addition to being, quite frankly, wrong in nearly every respect, including what can only be seen as fundamental misconceptions about core Wikipedia policies. Accordingly their response was justified. The fact you chose to respond with a unambiguous personal attack speaks volumes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking sides ("their response was justified"), administrator. That's just what we needed. The complaints department is at WP:ANI and you can make your case there. Mercy11 (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Longview, Texas. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longview Economic Development Corporation[edit]

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

Nothing to suggest notability, could not find any sources that meet WP:ORG or WP:ORGDEPTH. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:MILL. Virtually every city in Texas has a EDC, and Longview, Texas isn't even in the top 40 largest cities in Texas. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Longview, Texas. Unnecessary CFORK. Article does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT for a stand alone article. Content will benefit from inclusion in the target and the target will be improved with the selective addition of sourced content from this article. Readers will benefit from not having the content fragmented. // Timothy :: t | c | a 15:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The assessment of the sources in the article not providing notability has not been countered sufficiently. Daniel (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mansour Zandynahad[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Baristas aren't often notable enough for Wikipedia articles and I'm not convinced that this man is an exception. Not one of the articles used as references shows significant coverage of him as an individual, just passing mentions. I did a search in English and in Persian and couldn't find anything better. In fact, I think that the editor has done very well to find the sources that they did but, sadly, none of them show enough coverage as he is always just mentioned briefly alongside many other competitors in a latte art championship. Spiderone 17:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to dear spiderone user, according to Wikipedia artists and athletes qualify for notability, they should have national , asian or world championship place record to be notable for Wikipedia. however most news are Persian news and also interviews are from Top Persian Tv show as like "Manoto Tv or Mehr News Agency" and i tried to gather most popular news from his careers . on this article also we can find world ranking documents which publishs on world latte art championship federation websites .according to the another popular baristas like 'Paul Bassett','Fritz Storm' , 'Gwilym Davies (barista)'..etc. , we can help this article to improve and keep it. however again i'll add another notable references from Persian and English news to this article Preddis (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, none of those three look notable either. It seems that their main claim to fame is winning the World Barista Championship, which might make them inherently notable and might mean they can bypass GNG essentially. Has Zandynahad won the World Barista Championship? Spiderone 19:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

he won national , Asian and Middle East latte art championship from 2014 to 2017 and he got 7th place in world latte art championship and according to another wikipedia articles and wikipdia term ,therefrore i think we can keep it and help this article to improve Preddis (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

winning a national latte art competition doesn't make someone inherently notable. Please can you provide sources that show that he passes the guidelines for biographies as outlined in WP:BIO? In particular WP:BASIC? Spiderone 21:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis -

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://old.tabrizeman.ir/?p=3962		Reputable news source	Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.bultannews.com/fa/news/461973/%D9%86%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B4%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%86%DB%8C		News source	Very brief. Small paragraph on him.	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehuNN0BvCxE&ab_channel=manototv		YouTube video		✘ No
https://fidilio.com/go/in-the-city/barista	Is a sponsor of these latte competitions		Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.mehrnews.com/news/2977331/%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%82%D9%87-%D9%86%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B4%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C-%D9%82%D9%87%D9%88%D9%87-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.iranlatteart.com/gallery/%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1%DB%8C/386-%DA%AF%D9%81%D8%AA%DA%AF%D9%88-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87-%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%85%D9%84%DB%8C-%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%87-%D8%A2%D8%B1%D8%AA	Has a direct interest in promoting latte artists, not independent	Interviews from non-independent sources are not considered reliable nor are they evidence of notability		✘ No
http://www.worldlatteart.org/competitors/	This is a latte art competitor listing	?	Mentioned alongside several other non-notable baristas	✘ No
https://sprudgelive.com/world-coffee-budapest-day-two-recap/	A coffee company	?	Just a picture of him, no prose	✘ No
http://bunogroup.com/blog/%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%87-%D8%A2%D8%B1%D8%AA-%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%BE%D8%B3%D8%AA/	?	Blog	Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.worldcoffeeevents.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-WLAC-FINAL-RESULTS-1.pdf			Just a results listing. He didn't even make the final. Can't see how this makes him notable.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Spiderone 09:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - has anyone got even one source showing significant coverage of Zandynahad? Spiderone 11:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly notable per all the reliable independent sources provided. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2 - please can you confirm which source(s) from the article show a passing of GNG? Aside from a video on Iran Latte Art, nothing else provides more than a trivial name check and my understanding of GNG is that name checks don't amount to a GNG pass. I would also argue that Iran Latte Art is a non-independent source since they would have an interest in promoting latte artists, in my view. Spiderone 23:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue that the Louvre is a poor source of information on French art because they have an interest in promoting French art, Golf Digest is a poor source for golf, and so on. But limiting sources to those that know nothing about the subject would be going too far. Latte art is an important creative field, and the subject is a leading figure who has been noted by many sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since per the very good analysis provided above, not even one of the sources meets the requirement that a source needs to have to add towards passing GNG. All articles must pass GNG, this one does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Spiderone’s analysis of the sources. There are awards for all sorts of things that don’t support notability, even though they will get covered in specialist trade press and local media. Mccapra (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ the analyses of the references are not completely correct . as a sample, the reference from manoto verified News and Tv show YouTube channel , is the full interview and biography of whole the Mansour Zandynahad's Carres and Life . and according to the Persian news on the references , you can approve notability of the Iran national , Asian , and Middle East latte art championship's winner. he is also got 7th place of the world championship . Preddis (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vote twice. If winning the Iran national latte art championship makes you notable, please point me to the Wikipedia guideline that supports that. Spiderone 14:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes of course, winner of the Asian and Middle east championship and 7th of the World is notable . the references are supports the notability according to the .also the manually analyzed references are not accurate too . please let them to vote about notability and reference Preddis (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. as per WP:SIGCOV - can this be said about the sourcing for Zandynahad? Spiderone 16:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Lake Resort, California[edit]

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

As the name and the article both say, it is just a resort, as it ever has been. Not a settlement, and I see no sign that it is notable as a resort. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another California non-settlement.-Kieran207 talk 02:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete resorts are not default notable, and nothing suggests this one is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. WP:GEOLAND "informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." // Timothy :: talk 00:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to He Is Legend. As is typical for album articles found not to be independently notable ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

White Bat (album)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM, a search did not turn up enough in-depth reviews to pass that or WP:GNG. Currently sourced with a single independent review which is little more a blurb. The other sources are an advertising mag and Allmusic, and a promotional announcement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Allmusic is not a reliable source in this case since it's just a track listing and user reviews. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Article has plenty of sources. If the article can not be kept, this useful search term can be merged into He Is Legend. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources in the article (except AllMusic) seem reliable. I also found some reliable sources about the album: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] and [54]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - of the above refs, only a single one is a review of the album, from a niche publication. The others are about songs on the album, or from non-reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to He Is Legend. The best source that I could come up with is a review from Kerrang; the rest of the sources are unreliable and thus not sufficient for a standalone article. HĐ (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to He Is Legend. Does not satisfy NALBUM. – DarkGlow (✉) 11:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The relevant question is whether there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of this school, and in my view, the participants of this discussion are divided as to whether the available sourcing passes that test—specifically, the two Guardian sources seem to contribute to notability, but there is no consensus either way. Mz7 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkby High School[edit]

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

This school is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia, as per WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.

As noted on the talk page, when I originally enquired into this, school pupils do not make the school notable on their own, as per WP:ORG. "An organisation is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it" Neon (Talk) 16:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Neon (Talk) 16:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Neon (Talk) 16:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: The rubric for GNG can be confusing. We are here to discuss the Wikipedia concept of Notability not fame or unusual aspects or notability. We need to prove that there are at least two independent reports about the school. Here we have 3 Ofsted reports that track its rough history. One , two and three. The Liverpool echo is the paper to visit for further reports, and this gives us analysis of the stats. We don't need more to prove notability but Liverpool Echo Feature article is on how the school came out of special measures. This is also the successor to Ruffwood School, and the Guardian Feature is a delight to read and give more material. There is no question, this meets WP:N and the article is almost writing itself. ClemRutter (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Ofsted is a government-assisted agency that is required by law to write reports about the school, and secondly, Liverpool Echo gives minor coverage of the school as it is one of the few secondary schools in the region, and the school and perhaps Liverpool echo "fake" some of what they say and probably cant be trusted. Neon (Talk)

Delete due to this lacking multiple in-depth independent refences about it that are independent of the school, neutral, and not extremely run of the mill. The first three references provided by ClemRutter are neither independent or neutral. They are also extremely run of the mill. As is evidence by such sentences in them as "Pupils are strongly encouraged to develop a social conscience and to care about their community." Which could apply to any school out there and ultimately tells us nothing encyclopedically meaningful about it.

Also, the Echo references are just more of the same. One is just basic run of the mill government derived stats like what proportion of the schools students are persistently absent, which is again is extremely run of the mill, and the other isn't much better due to just being an interview with the headteacher that contains such WP:MILL quotes in it as "It’s about building up the identity, that’s so crucial. And then there’s the pride." None of that is enough to build an article off of, that isn't mainly a POV issue filled advert.

The only reference that might work is the one from The Guardian, but that's extremely questionable also due to the lack of any real coverage of the school in it. Since out of four short paragraphs dealing with Ruffwood the longest is only the personal opinion of a person on if they would have gone there or not if they hadn't of offered A-Levels. Again, that's nothing to make this pass WP:GNG or any other notability standard though. Nor does anything else seem to make it do so. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas Adam @Adamant1: Nice of you to pop by. You have your own rule of three- I have given you five. You love the phrase 'run of the mill' which is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia provided you have the sources. There is an wiki- essay that gives another editors POV- not policy. Ofsted is really the strongest source you can get- and what wikipedia is looking for, independent from government and forensic in its judgement. There are numerous Liverpool echo articles on the closure drama. Numerous-Google to see.It amuses me that any one has to embroider WP:GNG(actually WP:N) with other WP:XXs that all point back to WP:GNG when you read them. Good to see you are a Guardian reader it really is a fascinating article, and sufficient source in itself. You ignore the fact that the bar we have to cross is that we need to show a sufficient source exists (not show them)- though I like you would prefer to see at least two. A simple Google on Ruffwood School delivers pages of material, and the name Alan Barnes the pioneer in comprehensive education. All we are supposed to do is prove there is notable material around- not write the article-- but there is nothing to stop you from trying as I have done most of the research. ClemRutter (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This school isnt Ruffwood and if we were to speak about the schools history, we probably could include most primary schools at that rate Neon (Talk)

Keep. Easily enough coverage for notability, as with any British secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). The sources in the article:

"Kirky High School" : Not an IS RS to establish notability.

"Is Knowsley Council Waving Goodbye to its responsibility for educationon the quiet?". falseeconomy.org.uk. : Dead link, but appears to be about the community council not the school.

"Kirkby High School - GOV.UK". get-information-schools.service.gov.uk. Not an IS RS to establish notability.

Crockfords (London, Church House, 1995) ISBN 0-7151-8088-6 : Notability is not inherited from former students.

The sources above are three government statistical reports which do not meet IS RS or SIGCOV, one magazine statistical report which does not meet SIGCOV, and one community interest story that does not meet SIGCOV. In fairness, the Guardian ref could be considered SIGCOV, and is obviously from a very IS RS. // Timothy :: talk 23:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have spoken elsewhere about the significance of Section 5 and Section 8 Ofsted Reports which are strongly WP:RS and cannot be considered statistical! In Wikipedia speak SIGCOV means that the reference addresses the subject and has nothing to do with the quantity of information. Do look at the content of the source I have quoted, add to the article. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources establishing notability about this and its predecessor schools. Bleaney (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This 2015 Guardian Feature is a strong enough alone to fix WP:N. ClemRutter (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VAVI Sport & Social Club[edit]

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

The links that aren't dead are limited to event listings. I cannot find any evidence of significant coverage of this organization or their events. StarM 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing in the article is to listings, social media and local press and I don’t see anything that would improve on this. In addition the article itself looks promotional. Mccapra (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources fail to establish notability and the article is very promotional Spiderone 14:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in this article suggests notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Sepúlveda[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSINGER. Likely created as advertisement by single-purpose account. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The nominator may be correct about a single-purpose account, and the article is bloated with unnecessary information about the singer's minor media appearances and personal life. However she did get some reliable media coverage in the Hispanic and multilingual communities, helping with criteria #1 and #7 at WP:NSINGER. The singer has achieved basic notability but this article certainly needs to be pared down to relevant facts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reference 2 in the article and others, so passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If all this bureaucracy is being caused by my "Weak Keep" vote above, just consider it KEEP and move on already. The singer has at least a little reliable media coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After doing a WP:BEFORE search as well as looking over provided sources it appears the subject receives SIGCOV in reliable sources. May not pass the SNG (WP:NSINGER) but passes the basic notability guideline for inclusion (WP:N. Note: The Forbes article would be considered RS had it been written by a staff member but I did not count it as RS due to it being written by a contributor. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 22:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam. I note the article has been moved to userspace to be worked on, so preserving history behind redirect. Up to editor discretion if any of the content should be merged into the proposed target article in the interim. Daniel (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn[edit]

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

per WP:Fringe theories and WP:Verifiability, the article itself say:

"in a mid 17th century book called "Dabistan-i Madhahib" by anonymous writer(s) in India."
"These chapters are not to be found in the Qur'an and there is no record of them in earlier sources"
"Western Academics such as von Grunebaum view the text as a clear forgery"

(an anonymous writer) and (no record of them in earlier sources), so this information according to whom? the article also depended on one source from (islamic-awareness.org) and they say it's "forgery".

the article look like a hypothesis not facts, and no reliable sources can confirm these alleged chapters. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article is very badly written as is clear from the intro “The chapters first appeared ten years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in a mid 17th century book” (???). The topic is two alleged quranic verses discovered centuries after the authoritative text had been established. The verses are a frequent topic of dissent between Sunni advocates who claim Shia Muslims accept them, and Shia advocates who say they don’t. There are reliable sources for this such as this, this and this, but the article needs a complete rewrite. Mccapra (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, the three sources you mentioned are reliable, but they don't give significant coverage to this topic. The first, two sources mention it only in passing, and the third source only gives a paragraph. If there's not much to cover then it should be merged into a parent article.VR _talk 04:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ve copied the article to my user space so I can rewrite it as I believe there is a keepable article underneath the clutter. Mccapra (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam. And while merging we should clearly make note that these claims are regarded as false by scholarship.VR _talk 04:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the merge suggested by Vice regent makes good sense, at least for the time being. Mccapra (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per vice regent Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: since there is (insufficiently thorough) coverage in reliable sources, a merge seems a good idea. That these are forgeries is not a problem, as long as it's clearly communicated. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question. @Vice regent, Eddie891, and Modussiccandi: why is Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam an appropriate merge target for this content? I ask because the article on Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam makes no mention of these forgeries (though I do see one mention of a Verse of Wilaya in a footnote in Twelver Shia Islam). BD2412 T 03:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a merge (not a redirect), the content doesn't yet have to be in the article. Rather, it would need to be incorporated into the existing article. Perhaps the "Corruption of the Quran" section might work. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what modussiccandi said— there’s not a mention, but one can be added. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ente Hridayathinte Udama[edit]

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. One review which is not enough to demonstrate film's notability. If I miss a specific notability criteria per above links pls let me know. Thanks Kolma8 (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and clean up. In terms of numbers there is a roughly even split between those arguing for deletion and those supporting keeping the content, either as a stand-alone article or merged with another. The arguments in favour of deletion concern a lack of reliable sourcing. A reliable source has been found, with an offer to clean up the article and add further reliable references. I'm therefore persuaded on policy grounds that there is a sufficient consensus to keep the content. Waggers TALK 15:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King (card game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. States absolutely no sources. Has multiple problems Arsonxists (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Arsonxists (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding anything on this, so it appears to be WP:NFT stuff. A few games websites mention a game by this name, but as a variant of barbu. So, after this is deleted, redirect this page name to Barbu (card game)#King or rıfkı, since we already have a section on that. If RS are eventually found for bridge variant named king, then a section can be created at Contract bridge#King, and a disambiguation hatnote can be used to distinguish them. However, given the enormous amount of material written about bridge, the fact that this alleged variant simply doesn't appear in major game sources pretty much says it all. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Barbu (card game)#King or rıfkı. I just did some cleanup work at Barbu (card game), and it is a trick/contract game, and from the details in both it seems clear this is actually a WP:CFORK, not a WP:NFT instance. However, much of the material in the stand-alone page is going to be redundant with the overall gameplay material in the other article, so this is not a "just copy it all into a section" merger. Rather, material that is entirely specific to this variant of barbu should be merged to the king/rıfkı section. There is one source cited, but it's unclear how reliable it is, or whether it provides all the material, so I would leave specifics of the merge up to regulars at Talk:Barbu (card game) and perhaps also ask WT:WikiProject Contract bridge and WT:WikiProject Board and table games for input (I've notified all three talk pages of this discussion). [@Alexandermcnabb:, who !voted in reference to my original post, before I changed my !vote.] — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC); updated: 05:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ As I chose to be guided by SMcCandlish's argument, I shall continue and agree with the merge and redirect proposal. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. According to David Parlett (2008), King is a 3-player, 36-card Russian compendium game uncovered by researcher, Anthony Smith, and goes back to the 1920s. Although some of the contracts are similar, it is not the same as Barbu which is a 4-player, 52- card, French game. In fact, according to John McLeod, the French version of King is called Le Jeu du Roi. Also King has nothing to do with whist and is actually a member of the Hearts family. So the article is a mess: its text is unsourced and the rules are incorrect. If there is eventually a consensus to retain it; I'm happy to clean it up and source it. I'm also happy to remove the section on King at Barbu (card game) and check the other sections there which are unsourced and look suspect. But I wouldn't merge King to Barbu; they're different games in the same family; a bit like whist and bridge. Bermicourt (talk) 08:57, 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) 00:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced. BEFORE failed to find anything to save this. User:Bermicourt above suggested there are sources, but did not provide proper bibliographical information that would help verify such claims.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I gave you the reference! David Parlett's 2008 publication which is entitled The Penguin Book of Card Games. Go look it up on Google Books! Frankly I don't care what happens to it; I was simply offering to align and source the article to Parlett if the consensus is to keep and clean up. Bermicourt (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is the issue here... only one source has been found so far. ~EdGl talk 04:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outrigger Macintosh[edit]

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

Neologism with no references - and unused in reliable sources. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not hugely covered, but term is definitely in use, and here is one good quality piece that could be used to source everything currently in the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daanveer[edit]

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

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

References: Essentially unsourced. Kolma8 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this one at least has an assertion of notability (being successful at the box office) although it's an unsourced assertion currently Spiderone 19:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it could be, but I wasn't able to find any supporting mentioning of the box office success. I found here [55] that "India's Lifetime Gross Collection: ₹4.29 Cr", which is in today's conversion into USD is roughly $500K..."Film did well at Indian box office and also recovered its total budget and made decent amount of profit." But again no on-line references. Kolma8 (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Mz7 (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fufuao[edit]

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

No information in WP:RSes nor in official census sources. The village or whatever it is seems very much non-notable. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The area and population in the infobox are from the census (https://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/dchb/DCHB_A/09/0964_PART_A_DCHB_GHAZIPUR.pdf), which also mentions that it has a primary school and a middle school. The name in the census is Rampur Phuphuaon, and the Hindi Wikipedia article has another reference but I couldn't find either the names used here in Google Books search of the source; could it be that there are other forms of the name? Peter James (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I would like to withdraw this as per WP:SK. Apart from the link posted by Peter James above, I was able to get another census link here. Also this one (in Hindi). A legally-defined area, thus passing WP:GNG in my opinion. Transliteration is partly to blame why it is difficult to search t in English. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination has been withdrawn. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upworldly Mobile[edit]

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

Non-notable book per WP:BK. I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per below. @SL93: you may withdraw the AfD now. SK2242 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Ravindranath, Sushila (2012-09-16). "Global adjustments". The Financial Express. Archived from the original on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28.
Mishra, Rahul (2015-03-15). Srivastava, Anshima P. (ed.). "Book Review: 'Upworldly Mobile' by Ranjini Manian" (PDF). NU Newsletter. NIIT University. pp. 17–18. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28.
The editor-in-chief of the newsletter is Anshima P. Srivastava, Assistant Professor of Business Communication/Technical Communication, Language and Literature. The author of the book review, Rahul Mishra, is part of the ICICI Business Leadership Programme. I consider the book review to be reliable because it has editorial oversight from a professor.
Kamath, Sudhish (2011-10-24). "The cultural connect: Ranjini Manian's Upworldly Mobile offers an insight on cultural intelligence for Indian managers and expats". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28.
"Being a global citizen, the Upworldly Mobile way". Business Line. 2011-10-25. Archived from the original on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28.

Sources with quotes
Ravindranath, Sushila (2012-09-16). "Global adjustments". The Financial Express. Archived from the original on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28. The article notes: Upworldly Mobile is a guide to behavioural and business skills for the new Indian manager. This is a book which came out of observing expatriate and Indian managers closely for over 17 years. ... Her first chapter explains how to meet and greet people from other cultures. This is not as simple as it sounds. ... Manian takes pains to explain what works with Westerners. ... Upwardly Mobile also tells a young manager how to deal with the Far East. ... Upwardly Mobile offers a lot of tips to foreigners as well. It is a genuine attempt to bridge the gaps between global citizens, all drawn from Manians interaction with her list of over 1,000 clients, from 76 nationalities, many of them from Fortune 500 companies. The style is chatty and anecdotal. It is definitely a ready reckoner for the global Indian setting forth on her maiden assignment. Mishra, Rahul (2015-03-15). Srivastava, Anshima P. (ed.). "Book Review: 'Upworldly Mobile' by Ranjini Manian" (PDF). NU Newsletter. NIIT University. pp. 17–18. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28. The editor-in-chief of the newsletter is Anshima P. Srivastava, Assistant Professor of Business Communication/Technical Communication, Language and Literature. The author of the book review, Rahul Mishra, is part of the ICICI Business Leadership Programme. I consider the book review to be reliable because it has editorial oversight from a professor. The article notes: Upworldly Mobile is intended for any Indian professional or budding professional who has to deal with expatriate colleagues virtually or in person, in India or abroad. It is a guide to the behavioral and business skills for the new Indian managers and the expatriate managers. ... This is a very practical book and will, no doubt, be of great help to Indians venturing into the global world of business. It’s worth a quick read. Kamath, Sudhish (2011-10-24). "The cultural connect: Ranjini Manian's Upworldly Mobile offers an insight on cultural intelligence for Indian managers and expats". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28. The article notes: There is a fine line between stereotyping people of different cultures and understanding the unique traits and practices every culture brings with it. Ranjini Manian's book Upworldly Mobile offers an insight on cultural intelligence for Indian managers and expats. ... Upwordly Mobile published by Penguin India is priced at Rs. 250 and carries a foreword by Shashi Tharoor. "Being a global citizen, the Upworldly Mobile way". Business Line. 2011-10-25. Archived from the original on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28. The article notes: The audience bursts into laughter when Ranjini Manian, Founder and CEO of relocation and cross-cultural destination services company Global Adjustments, poses this question to Jennifer McIntyre, Consul General, US Consulate, Chennai. The conversation is part of the launch of Upworldly Mobile: Behaviour and Business Skills for the New Indian Manager, Manian's book, launched at Chennai on Thursday. Penguin is the publisher. ... The book aims to provide practical tips to enhance communication between Indian managers working with expatriates or in global workplace. Through anecdotes, it tells readers how to deal with real-life situations, running the gamut from dress sense and firm handshakes to meeting deadlines and expectations.

Sources with quotes

Ravindranath, Sushila (2012-09-16). "Global adjustments". The Financial Express. Archived from the original on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28.
The article notes:
Upworldly Mobile is a guide to behavioural and business skills for the new Indian manager. This is a book which came out of observing expatriate and Indian managers closely for over 17 years.
...
Her first chapter explains how to meet and greet people from other cultures. This is not as simple as it sounds. ... Manian takes pains to explain what works with Westerners. ... Upwardly Mobile also tells a young manager how to deal with the Far East.
...
Upwardly Mobile offers a lot of tips to foreigners as well. It is a genuine attempt to bridge the gaps between global citizens, all drawn from Manians interaction with her list of over 1,000 clients, from 76 nationalities, many of them from Fortune 500 companies. The style is chatty and anecdotal. It is definitely a ready reckoner for the global Indian setting forth on her maiden assignment.
Mishra, Rahul (2015-03-15). Srivastava, Anshima P. (ed.). "Book Review: 'Upworldly Mobile' by Ranjini Manian" (PDF). NU Newsletter. NIIT University. pp. 17–18. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28.
The editor-in-chief of the newsletter is Anshima P. Srivastava, Assistant Professor of Business Communication/Technical Communication, Language and Literature. The author of the book review, Rahul Mishra, is part of the ICICI Business Leadership Programme. I consider the book review to be reliable because it has editorial oversight from a professor.
The article notes:
Upworldly Mobile is intended for any Indian professional or budding professional who has to deal with expatriate colleagues virtually or in person, in India or abroad. It is a guide to the behavioral and business skills for the new Indian managers and the expatriate managers.
...
This is a very practical book and will, no doubt, be of great help to Indians venturing into the global world of business. It’s worth a quick read.
Kamath, Sudhish (2011-10-24). "The cultural connect: Ranjini Manian's Upworldly Mobile offers an insight on cultural intelligence for Indian managers and expats". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28.
The article notes:
There is a fine line between stereotyping people of different cultures and understanding the unique traits and practices every culture brings with it. Ranjini Manian's book Upworldly Mobile offers an insight on cultural intelligence for Indian managers and expats.
...
Upwordly Mobile published by Penguin India is priced at Rs. 250 and carries a foreword by Shashi Tharoor.
"Being a global citizen, the Upworldly Mobile way". Business Line. 2011-10-25. Archived from the original on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28.
The article notes:
The audience bursts into laughter when Ranjini Manian, Founder and CEO of relocation and cross-cultural destination services company Global Adjustments, poses this question to Jennifer McIntyre, Consul General, US Consulate, Chennai. The conversation is part of the launch of Upworldly Mobile: Behaviour and Business Skills for the New Indian Manager, Manian's book, launched at Chennai on Thursday. Penguin is the publisher.
...
The book aims to provide practical tips to enhance communication between Indian managers working with expatriates or in global workplace. Through anecdotes, it tells readers how to deal with real-life situations, running the gamut from dress sense and firm handshakes to meeting deadlines and expectations.

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

Cunard (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am willing to withdraw the AfD based on the above sources, but SK2242 would need to change their vote to keep. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: I am withdrawing this AfD per the new sources. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

João the Gallician[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NSOLDIER. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:IS WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the particular soldier who fatally wounded a notable person in battle is not actually a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Essentially NN soldier. Possibly redirect to Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi, whom he killed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uba Danzainab[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:IS WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Some routine mill coverage exists and mentions in other articles that fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements. // Timothy :: talk 01:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t see any indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no actual indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as they do not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by nom, I do not believe WP:NPOL is satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akanksha Dhiman[edit]

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

Vanity article, poorly written and lacking proper sourcing; one title in an unknown pageant doesn't add up to notability. Created by COI editor. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even remotely close to being a notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Terribly fails WP:BASIC, WP:NMODEL RationalPuff (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Mz7 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External reference[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. If the article is kept, it needs to be Drafted as not ready for mainspace. // Timothy :: talk 00:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - It's not a neologism and the concept is clearly important. But this should not have been created in mainspace and it would not have graduated in its present form via the AfC process. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nom Comment: I almost drafted this, no objection. I also thought about merge targets and would not object if one is found that makes sense and improves the target and the content. // Timothy :: talk 08:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood for Kids[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Website does exist anymore and there is no indication this organization was ever notable. Fails WP:ORG. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t find any trace of it. Mccapra (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres Cafe[edit]

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

articles like this should not be in wikipedia. They're basically travel guides. Put them on wikitravel, or Yelp. Honey-badger24 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikitravel is a commercial site which exists to sell advertising and make money for its owners. The WMF project is Wikivoyage. That's not relevant either because it has a bizarre rule that a place can only have an article if you can spend the night there. So, that would exclude both this notable cafe and its notable building – the Chicago Board of Trade Building. Wikipedia is better than those narrow, restrictive sites because it is comprehensive. Because it includes all types of topic, Wikipedia's internal linking works efficiently and well. This then means that its search engine rating is high and so people use it. So, if it works, don't fix it. If you want to write articles in Wikitravel, Wikivoyage, Yelp then please go over there and do so. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is a well-established restaurant with sufficient references. Victor Grigas (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per easily passing GNG and per above. Nom rationale reeks with IDONTLIKEIT. Oakshade (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Chicago Tribune and Chicago Magazine coverage is good. The nominator appears to be making a general point about "articles like this", rather than directly addressing the sources in this article. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Town Ale House, Chicago[edit]

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

articles like this should not be in wikipedia. They're basically travel guides. Put them on wikitravel, or Yelp. Honey-badger24 (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikitravel is a commercial site which exists to sell advertising and make money for its owners. The WMF project is Wikivoyage. That's not relevant either because it has a bizarre rule that a place can only have an article if you can spend the night there. So, that would exclude this notable tavern, which sounds like a real-life, celebrity version of Cheers. Wikipedia is better than those narrow, restrictive sites because it is comprehensive. Because it includes all types of topic, Wikipedia's internal linking works efficiently and well. This then means that its search engine rating is high and so people use it. So, if it works, don't fix it. If you want to write articles in Wikitravel, Wikivoyage or Yelp then please go over there and do so. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is not a travel guide, this is an article about a business that has had cultural influence, enough to be recognized by people like Roger Ebert and Anthony Bourdain. Victor Grigas (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage by Chicago Tribune, Thrillist and Chicago Magazine are good. The nominator appears to be making a general point about "articles like this" rather than directly addressing the sources in the article nominated. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wieners Circle[edit]

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

articles like this should not be in wikipedia. They're basically travel guides. Put them on wikitravel, or Yelp. Honey-badger24 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikitravel is a commercial site which exists to sell advertising and make money for its owners. The WMF project is Wikivoyage. That's not relevant either because it has a bizarre rule that a place can only have an article if you can spend the night there. So, that would exclude this notable street vendor, which seems as notorious as the The Original Soupman. Wikipedia is better than those narrow, restrictive sites because it is comprehensive. Because it includes all types of topic, Wikipedia's internal linking works efficiently and well. This then means that its search engine rating is high and so people use it. So, if it works, don't fix it. If you want to write articles in Wikitravel, Wikivoyage or Yelp then please go over there and do so. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I started this article, it's a well-known restaurant and has been well-referenced. Victor Grigas (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well-referenced by who? Honey-badger24 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Tribune, New York Times, This American Life. Feel free to check the references here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wieners_Circle#References Victor Grigas (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well known restaurant seen in many tv shows. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Chicago Tribune, New York Times and This American Life coverage is good. The nomination appears to be making a point about "articles like this" rather than addressing the sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to San Jose City Council. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose City Council District 6[edit]

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

This is the only San Jose City Council district that has an article. It's longer than that article, and much of its content is trivia and ephemera. There are not articles for council districts in several larger US cities, such as San Diego City Council, Dallas City Council, and Philadelphia City Council. Sjedits (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Jose City Council nothing significantly notable about this council district and does not need a standalone article. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Jose City Council per above. // Timothy :: talk 01:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redriect as suggested and per WP:NPOL and WP:CHEAP. Redirects are not just for indivdidual politicians anymore. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

U – Kathe Hero[edit]

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

The film has no reliable reviews, fails WP:NFILM. All the cast and crew are non-notable and nothing significant found in WP:BEFORE. Ab207 (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Syllable Desktop. Which is also up for deletion. Sandstein 11:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AtheOS[edit]

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

This article has had the prompt for additional sources since 2010, however it is unlikely that this is ever going to be provided since the project has been dead for over nineteen years. In addition, this does not meet notability guidelines, being a long-defunct minor hobbyist OS without an apparent install or usage base of substantial size at any point. Foonblace (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Syllable Desktop (if that article is kept of course). I don´t see much coverage of the AtheOS itself, both OSs could be covered in one article (eg. AtheOS in a history section). Pavlor (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by Pavlor. Syllable Desktop is a fork of AtheOS according to ArchiveOS [56] so they are two incarnations of the same technology. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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