The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B4U Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems to fail NCORP; not entirely sure about the Malaysian sources, but they don't seem entirely reliable, and even then they don't exceed routine coverage. Aside from that, the article is quite clearly promotional in nature. It also has a volatile edit history with at least one editor repeatedly stating that the company is a Ponzi scheme and with edit warring over whether it is based in Pakistan or Malaysia. Lennart97 (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no claims of notability in the article, no foreign language article, my google search did not find anything to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches did not turn up enough to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Thompson (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable politician who doesn’t satisfy any of the criterion from WP:NPOL. Being a mere interim president leader for a political party doesn’t confer automatic notability. Sources used in the article are mere announcements of how subject of article has been nominated as interim president. Celestina007 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails NPOL. Lennart97 (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lennart97. 2001:569:74D2:A800:882E:ADFE:36AF:64DD (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can write and reference something more substantial. To be fair, he isn't interim president of the party, he's interim leader of the party — that is, he's not the person who presides over the party's internal board meetings, he's the person who would be the party's candidate for premier of the province if New Brunswick were to hold an election tomorrow. (But it won't, as it just had one a few months ago that resulted in a majority government for a different party than Thompson's.) But that said, being a party leader is not an automatic notability freebie under WP:NPOL if the person isn't also an actual MLA in the legislature — to actually warrant an article, he would have to show substantive coverage of his work in the role, not just technical verification of his selection. So just being a party leader isn't enough in and of itself — and while the "interim leader" vs. "permanent leader" distinction doesn't have any direct bearing on the notability of a party leader per se, as interim leaders can be genuinely notable, it does tend to tamp down on the depth and volume of coverage that an interim leader actually gets. So he would need to have quite a bit more media coverage than this, enabling us to write something quite a bit more substantial than just "Chris Thompson is a political party leader who exists", before he qualified for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NPOL. Probably WP:TOOSOON for this one. KidAd talk 19:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per nom, does not meet WP:NPOL, Alex-h (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails NPOL Spudlace (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - meets neither WP:SIGCOV or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Playing in the Malaysian Premier League doesn't not make them notable. Does not pass WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Person has not played in a FC, LA or T20 match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCRIC easily there. HawkAussie (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not pass NCRIC or GNG. The Malaysia Premier League is not of a sufficiently high standard. Eagleash (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; fails even the low-bar of NCRIC; also fails GNG and no reason to think sufficient coverage exists anywhere. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Lugnuts, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCRIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. E. London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article makes some claims that would establish notability, but I cannot find credible, independent sources to verify these awards. Some blogs discuss her exhibition work, but none of these appear to provide significant coverage or meet reliable sources guidelines. It does read as if it's a copyvio from somewhere, but imagine it's the artist's own info, so not flagging on that issue StarM 20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sources I saw in a search led back to either her web site or commercial galleries and venues. GNG and NARTIST fail. Possibly (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might also note that only one of the source in the article (Wildlife magazine?) appears to possibly be independent critical coverage, and it is a dead link. Of the others, one source is from Blogspot, one from wordpress.com and at least one is an event announcement. Possibly (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply same here @Possibly:. When I first found this a few days ago I thought wow, there's a ton on her background, why is this long-tagged for notability especially with what I anticipated was a full feature, and then I realized there were issues. Shame as that Wildlife one seemed promising. StarM 00:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyThe Wildlife Art Magazine was an independent article. It was a very nice multi-page profile about her. That fact doesn't change just because you can't read it online anymore. Netmouse (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply it is when we can't verify the claim that there was an independent article. There's no proof it actually existed, although I'm AGFing that it did and that's how it landed in the article. My concern with this is since so much was (indirectly) sourced to the artist's own materials, no one involved as actually seen the article. StarM 18:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No Proof It actually Existed? Do you mean the article, which someone involved (me) did actually read, or do you mean the magazine? The Wildlife Art Magazine went out of business in 2009, as you can see in this announcement: http://www.natureartists.com/news_events/news.asp?NewsID=1871 It is one main source of external references on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Banovich but I don't see that article being nominated for deletion. I used to also have a link to the Build On Hope website in the references but someone deleted it. Same person appears to have also deleted some in-text references to other organizations she has been part of as "too promotional". You can see a link to them and other organizations at http://www.natureartists.com/artists/artist_biography.asp?ArtistID=1265. Netmouse (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply no offense intended, Netmouse (talk · contribs) I said I was assuming good faith that it did exist, I have no reason to doubt that you or someone might have seen it. We have no evidence, which is what verifiability is about. Build On Hope does not appear to be the type of external link that belongs in an article. If she is a part of these organizations they are not independent and do not establish notability. An article should not consist of links to organizations, but reliable sources providing in-depth, significant coverage of a subject to establish whether they meet the notability guidelines. As for Banovich, other stuff exists and you're welcome to nominate him for deletion if you believe the sourcing is too thin. That's what we do as volunteers. StarM 02:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have found the source confirming she got the Society of Animal Artists award (see 2005). As she is a member of a number of nature/animal artists' societies (I have found at least 2 apart form the mentioned), there are articles about her on their pages, but these can't be considered independent. But just in case - here they are - 1, 2. Less Unless (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Less Unless: Thanks for the links. I checked into them and London is a paying member of all three of those societies, including the "Society of Animal Artists". As such any coverage or prizes emanating from them is basically a member benefit. Possibly (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: Yes, I agree, as I said they are not independent so can't be used to back up the notability. Less Unless (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: I don't necessarily agree, but I am not familiar with this Society. However, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association gives out the Nebula Awards, yet whether or not you are a member is not considered to reduce the notability of receiving the award. The Association of Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists likewise gives out the Chesley Awards, which is considered a high honor. Similarly the Oscars, etc. It is not common for awards to be given by societies of people particularly interested in the focus of the award? Netmouse (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netmouse: as you said " the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association gives out the Nebula Awards" and "whether or not you are a member is not considered to reduce the notability of receiving the award". In the case of the wildlife conservation societies above, item #1, the prize, is a distinct members-only prize: their site says it is an award "presented to members of the Society of Animal Artists at our Annual Exhibitions". The last two items mentioned above are member pages provided as part of membership, the content of which is controlled by the artist. Possibly (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment....I am not sure this is how to respond and contribute to this discussion. However, I'll offer this and can also ,where ever appropiate ,send printed articles to substantiate the facts mentioned on her site. Also I question the "member benefit"mentioned . When an actor wins an academy award or a SAG award- is that a "member benefit"? Paid membership? Both the Society of Animal Artists and Artists for Conservation represent organizations which honor only the best of the membership with awards. Both represent the highest level of wildlife art on the planet,and few organizations or institutions exist for that purpose. The Society of Animal Artists only accepts artists which meet their standards and they honor only the vest of those members. By the way , without paid membership few ,if any,organizations which recognize artistic excellence would exist. December(UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seascience (talk • contribs) — Seascience (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Possibly: I realized that later while working on the article (that only members are eligible for the award, and that's the difference) - but the Wildlife conservation artists society page does indicate it has 500 members, so an award that only 1 person has won each year for the past 40 years can hardly be described as a "member benefit", since the vast majority of its members will never win it. Netmouse (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK then let's call it a possible member benefit: you still have to be a member to get it. Possibly (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no independent reliable sources found to pass the notability guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject of this article does not meet notability criteria for GNG nor NARTIST. The overall tone of the article is promotional and the sourcing is extremely weak. Netherzone (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• When an actor wins an academy award or a SAG award- is that a "member benefit"? Paid membership? Both the Society of Animal Artists and Artists for Conservation represent organizations which accept and honor only the best of the membership with awards. Both represent the highest level of wildlife art on the planet,and few organizations or institutions exist for that purpose. The Society of Animal Artists only accepts artists which meet their standards and they honor only the best of those members. By the way , without paid membership few ,if any,organizations which recognize artistic excellence would exist. December(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seascience (talk • contribs) — Seascience (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The awards are a bit of a red herring, as they are not that important in determining the notability of a subject. It's independent coverage by good sources that count. The fact that you say above that you have a collection of "printed articles to substantiate the facts mentioned" means you may have something to disclose. Please see your talk page. Possibly (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seascience, @Netmouse:, With all due respect, I think what she and her husband have done for animals is admirable. However regarding her work as an artist, there is simply no comparison between an Academy Award and an award from the Society of Animal Artists. Maybe if she received a Guggenheim Fellowship one could make a comparison. Re: press coverage, even if a copy of the multi-page article in Wildlife magazine can be produced, it is not enough to pass NARTIST. Even if an article ran in Artforum magazine, one article might not be enough. I found it interesting how inflated some of the claims are/were (the promotional wording has been somewhat toned-down in the past few days) - there was something like in "2014 she won Best in Show in the most prestigious shows in North America" (paraphrasing mine). This does not even make sense... what, she "won" the Whitney Biennial, or the Carnegie International, or Made in L.A.? No. Her work is represented by a tourist gallery. As far as Art Fairs, they are simply market places, it is not the same as exhibiting at MoMA or LACMA, the National Gallery or the Met. The fact that the article includes that she was "featured in a calendar" simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. Regarding the "Logo for the Sketch for Survival", it was not her logo that raised $200,000, it was the prominent people like Dame Judy Dench and Dame Helen Mirren. Again, this is misleading and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. I am all for niche art genres and outsider artists, other editors here can vouch for that, but the "Quickdraw Competition? No. I apologize if this is direct, but I feel it needs to be said. Netherzone (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously I think the subject is notable or I would not have bothered to create an article about her. As I said on the Talk page, I was really impressed by her work when I saw her at an art Fair and have no relationship to her, commercial or otherwise. I haven't been able to do much maintenance in the last decade, but clearly she has continued to be active on an influential and international scale, as a conservationist and artist both. It does look as though someone pasted a bunch of text into the article from another source that was not in wikipedia-appropriate format. I have tried to clean that up a bit and am working on finding references. I'm sure there are plenty in newspapers.com. The "needs citation" line tagged near the top was always based on a statement in the Wildlife Magazine profile of her - I wrote the article before the era of expecting every paragraph to be individually referenced. The lack of external links to this article speaks to me more of this subject area being a hole in what is covered here on Wikipedia than an indication of low notability of this particular person. We should keep the article and build around it instead of insisting on re-instating a complete lack of coverage. I see that one of her partner organizations does have a page, so with a couple weeks of work I think it could be a better, more interlinked article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netmouse (talk • contribs)
• Delete I'm often reluctant to contribute to wildlife, watercolor, and other genres of artists who exhibit on entirely different (and insular) circuits. I feel comfortable in this case, for two reasons: 1) none of the awards come close to being the kind that will establish notability: none have their own Wikipedia pages, nor are they even mentioned on pages for organizations. 2) the society in question gives SO MANY awards every year. I'm counting 20 awards for 2019 [1]. And the society has levels/ranks of membership, the second highest of which is for people who have won the Award of Excellence more than five times which means that one award isn't even valued that highly amongst the society. London is in the 3rd rank of membership. Just for reference, the highest rank includes about 15 people, only two of whom have pages here

• Charles Allmond
• Chris Bacon (artist)
• Gerald Balciar
• Robert Bateman (painter)
• Burt Brent (artist)
• Carel Pieter Brest van Kempen
• Guy Coheleach
• Bob Kuhn (artist)
• Walter Matia
• Leo Osborne
• Patricia Pepin
• Sherry Salari Sander
• Morten Solberg
• Kent Ullberg
• Sue Westin

and of those two, both have works in museum collections, and one of whom had a solo exhibition at the Smithsonian... Theredproject (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I see what you mean, but a) to a certain extent, the fact that so many of their highest level artists don't have pages just reinforces my sense that this is information the encyclopedia *ought* to have but is lacking, perhaps because wildlife conservation art fans spend a lot of time traveling the planet and conserving wildlife instead of editing Wikipedia. *shrugs* I don't know. b) I DO know, however, that historically most of the gatekeepers (high level decision-makers in both professional art AND here in Wikipedia have historically been male, and the two artists whose articles you found are both 1. male, and 2. ~30 years older than London. So the fact that their artwork has penetrated further into establishment appreciation is at least somewhat related to the fact that their careers are more established, as well as being more, shall we say, traditionally acceptable for men of their era (they were both born in the 1930s). You see this observation reinforced by the fact that only 3 of the 15 highest level artists are female. Clearly there is some way in which it has been harder for women to reach that level of recognition. Many historians are now going back through time and identifying female artists who were as or more talented than their male peers, but whose work was not accepted into galleries due to gender-based attitudes. Do we want Wikipedia to continue that sexism by basing notability so strongly on things like prestigious Gallery Shows, even in this era of direct sales? Like I have said, it is not my specialty. But I would not make suppositions about the Combes award being insignificant to the society based on levels of membership. To me it mainly indicates the two are based on different criteria. Netmouse (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're talking about different awards, since your reference leads to the Society for Animal Artists, of which London is a Signature Member and the artists you listed are Master members of that society. I was thinking of the Combes Award, which is given out by Artists For Conservation, who indicate, the "AFC's Simon Combes Conservation Award is the most prestigious award and highest honour AFC presents to a member artist who has shown artistic excellence and extraordinary contributions to the conservation cause, exemplifying the same qualities as the award's namesake." Re: the Society for Animal Artists giving out some 20 awards, some of that multiplicity is just due to giving out different awards for 2D or 3D art. Netmouse (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend the Women in Red wikiproject if you want to help counter that imbalance, which I very much agree exists and try to correct for those women for whom Wikipedia hasn't yet caught up with available resources and sourcing. Unfortunately without reliable sources there doesn't appear to be a way for London and her female counterparts in the wildlife art fields to meet the notability guidelines. StarM 22:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netmouse: I beg to differ with your assessment that there is gender bias, sexism or ageism involved. In the realms of Ecological art, Ecofeminist art, and some Environmental art you will find that the the vast majority of practitioners are women. And I don't mean just what you might find on WP but in general, globally, women are the major players in this arena for decades, since the 1970s. The subject of this article is simply not in that league. Netherzone (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netmouse:The gender of an article subject is not mentioned in any of the notability criteria as being a factor. While there are projects and efforts to improve the representation of women on Wikipedia, the AFD process is not one of them; her gender is not relevant to the discussion here at all. Possibly (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: My comment about gender was in direct response to Theredproject's comment that one of the only two artists in the Society for Animal Artists' "master" level of members that had a profile here on Wikipedia also had a "solo exhibition at the Smithsonian." I know gender is not a criteria in Notability, but when one is comparing male artists born in the 1930s to a female artist born in the late 1950s, whether or not they might be exhibited in Museums, including the Smithsonian could be related to, well, a) the vast population explosion of the late 20th century, and b) gender-involved issues as to who made such decisions and according to what norms. Right now the executive director of the Smithsonian American Art Museum is female, but Robert Bateman was featured in 1987. I was commenting on how challenging it might have been for HIM to get that level of recognition THEN (as opposed to any female artist, then). Obviously, London's career was not as developed at that time. Netmouse (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The subject is obviously hard to search for online, since her last name is the capitol city of a country that was once ruled by a queen with her same first name. Try searching for her husband's name instead/in addition. See some results below. Netmouse (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• https://goodgritmag.com/blogs/news/defenders-of-the-future Defenders of the Future, by Deborah Burst. Good Grit Magazine, May 23, 2020
• http://mountaintrailsgalleries.com/project/anne-london/ Anne London: Mountain Trails Galleries artist profile
• http://www.eyeonsunvalley.com/Story_Reader/4065/Artisans-Invitational-Artist-Has-to-Paint-Fast-in-the-Bush Artisans Invitational Artist Has to Paint Fast in the Bush, by Karen Bossick. Eye on Sun Valley, July 31, 2017
• https://statestreetdistrict.org/blog/2016/3/10/gddcpi3zgtsb5p4ojwt6r495c3lwe6 State Street District, March 11, 2016
• https://www.nola.com/news/communities/st_tammany/article_dd05777b-202b-5120-8ec1-1ce3e4ecfb8a.html In Profile: Artist ties life to helping wildlife, By Deborah Burst. The Times Picayune, April 21, 2015
• https://explorersagainstextinction.co.uk/arts-for-animals/ Arts for Animals, Explorers against Extinction
• https://earthfireinstitute.org/podcads/through-wolves-eyes-insights-from-wildlife-artist-anne-london-part-i-re-release/ Through Wolves’ Eyes: Insights from Wildlife Artist Anne London, Part I, Earthfire Institute
• https://earthfireinstitute.org/podcads/the-connective-nature-of-art-a-conversation-with-wildlife-artist-anne-london-part-ii/ The Connective Nature of Art: A Conversation with Wildlife Artist Anne London, Part II, Earthfire Institute
• Call of the Wild: the Art & Altruism of AE London, Edge of the Lake Magazine, Feb/Mar 2019, pp 42-47 https://issuu.com/edgeofthelake/docs/edge_febmar

Many of the above do not look like reliable sources to me. For example the nola.com article and goodgrit magazine article are the same author and are version of the same text. Mountain Trails Gallery sells her work. Edge of the Lake Magazine is bursting with advertisements, which seems to be their main purpose. The earthfireinstitute.org links are podcasts, so not independent. Are there any RS in this new list? Please point one out. Possibly (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm unconvinced by the sources found. No independent reliable sources to establish notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletenotability.--Pmand ^{(talk • Contributions)} 11:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Podcast not a RS? if a podcast is never a reliable source, as @Possibly implies, how come there is a Cite Template for podcasts? Netmouse (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Netmouse, may I jump in here to shed some light why these EarthFire Institute podcasts are not a reliable source? The podcast is basically an interview. Interviews are considered primary sources, since they are not independent of the subject. Additionally, the podcaster herself in the intro clearly states that London is a "friend" and is affiliated with EarthFire Institute, therefore again, not independent. Netherzone (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RS: Magazine a RS is being rejected just because it cannot be easily accessed online, in contradiction to WP:SOURCEACCESS Did it ever exist? This is verifiable by any decent librarian. Netmouse (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles by D. Burst not the same @Possible dismisses coverage by author Deborah Burst from 2015 and 2020, indicating her two articles "are version of the same text" But I would posit there is nothing strange or non-independent about an author doing a five-years-later follow-up about a subject of interest. The 2020 article includes info about the Wildlife Center London and her husband built in 2016 - info that could not possibly have been printed in 2015, and was not. My guess is that this year the author was recycling a bit of material from her initial interview with London, which the 2015 piece covers in much more extensive detail, then also reporting developments since then. Absolutely normal journalism. The question for RS is are the sources reliable and independent. The Picayune is obviously a print publication that has shifted online, with an editorial staff, etc, so yes. Good Grit Magazine has only been around since 2015 but certainly looks legit. (A new voice in Southern storytelling: Meet Good Grit magazine By Ryan Phillips – Digital Producer, Birmingham Business Journal Oct 15, 2015) Netmouse (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Child support in the United States. Opinions are divided between delete and merge. A redirect allows a merger from the history if anybody wants to do this. Sandstein 09:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interest on past due child support (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod from over 5 years ago because "No secondary sources used to establish this as a notable topic unto itself; all 3 sources are primary. See WP:RS"

Prod template removed by article creator because "...I want to improve the article so it meets standards. However, I need more time to learn how to do what I need to do." (their edit summary)

Article hasn't improved much since then, and I agree with prod nominator in that this doesn't seem like a notable topic on its own; reading the lead paragraph of the article, the article scope is messy, not well-defined, and set up like an essay.

Only sources are of US state laws. ~EdGl talk 20:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 20:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 20:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 20:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too US-centric to be of interest to a general audience and poorly-sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Child support in the United States. BD2412 T 21:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Child support in the United States per above.★Trekker (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Child support in the United States. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (from nominator): Those of you saying "merge", what content in the article is worth merging into that other article? Nothing is sourced except a couple bits of state law information. ~EdGl talk 04:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is specifically about things in the United States, so it should be covered under that topic. However there is no show that this is notable, and so nothing we need to preserve by merging.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge' as suggested and reasonable. Please ping me if you required assistance. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a largely-unsourced essay. The only sourcing is the primary sources for interest in 3 specific states. If someone wanted to work on this as a draft (or add some well-sourced material on the topic to Child support in the United States) that would be fine, but none of the current content is suitable for merging. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Child support in the United States Spudlace (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per power~enwiki very little sourced content in the article is suitable for merging Spudlace (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Very similarly to Toyoji Takahashi, he was selected for the 1936 Summer Olympics team, but did not appear in a match. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per consensus at the Takahashi AfD Spiderone 20:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet WP:NOLYMPICS, WP:NFOOTY, or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Very similarly to Toyoji Takahashi, he was selected for the 1936 Summer Olympics team, but did not appear in a match. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per consensus at the Takahashi AfD Spiderone 20:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY or WP:NOLYMPICS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jessica Sutta. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Wanna Be Bad (Jessica Sutta song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article does not meet either WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. During a before search, I could not find evidence this song received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. The citations currently used in the article are from unreliable sources. The song did chart, but that is not enough on its own to make it notable. Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Jessica Sutta. Not enough coverage for a standalone article. HĐ (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jessica Sutta: Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above Spudlace (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rediect to Sutta article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No consensus in 2009, but no evidence he's a notable veteran, missionary or author. StarM 19:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one fairly niche press review of his work seems to be the only independent source on him, that is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a complete lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. The article was created by a WP:SPA and functions as free advertising for his books. It should be swiftly uprooted to eliminate corruption of the purpose of Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There was no consensus 11 years ago, but I think the arguments by DGG and others were stronger. One major source has not been considered "significant coverage". Bearian (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Back in 2009 I argued on the basis that his books were in almost no libraries. This is 11 years later, so I checked again. Hist three books are atill in almsot no libraries: 13, 4, and 2 Worldcat libraries. Tho not all evangelical college libraries are included in worldcat, all the well-known ones are, and not one school of any sort has a copy of any of the books except Redeemer University College, which has his first book DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly there has been time for his works to have made more of an impact, and they haven't, so delete as per failure to meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Covert UPE article on a non notable sound engineer & rapper that fails to satisfy GNG or any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. A before search turns up nothing of substance. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination Coreykai (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources fail to establish notability Spiderone 19:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. This player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL and does not appear to have ever been notable. There is not even really an assertion of notability other than the fact that she was second-choice goalkeeper in an under-19 tournament. No decent coverage found in a Russian language search. Spiderone 19:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yet another player who meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable actress - been in non notable films or played one-bit roles, found a few reviews for 1 film ^[1][2][3] however these are the best I've found, IMHO TOOSOON. Potentially meets NACTOR however without fail fails GNG. Thanks,

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the combination of non-notable productions and bit parts does not add up to notability. Especially considering she is under-18 and in such cases we need to have even clearer indications of notability to overcome added privacy concerns.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete He does not have enough fame such cases we need to have even clearer indications of notability.--Pmand ^{(talk • Contributions)} 11:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked as a sock. StarM 17:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can't see how those roles add up to passing WP:NACTOR, and definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

PROD rationale was Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL so does not meet any inclusion guideline. This is routine, this is a brief article in a local paper and this lacks depth.

Contested with reason Per WP:SPORTCRIT, a player is considered notable if they have "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." This includes national team championships and club championships such as the UEFA Women's Cup.

I stand by my initial PROD as my understanding of football notability is that Ves needs to pass GNG. Spiderone 18:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete not even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

PROD rationale was Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL and so does not meet any inclusion guideline.

Contested with reason Per WP:SPORTCRIT, a player is considered notable if they have "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." This includes national team championships and club championships such as the UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship.

I stand by the initial PROD rationale as my understanding is that WP:NFOOTBALL is only passed with senior international caps not under-19 ones. Spiderone 18:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for footballers. This is not footballapedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birnam Wood, Albemarle County, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

GNIS entry is sourced to one of the ADC street maps, which is always a bad sign. Google Maps shows two cul-de-sacs next to each other, stuff like this calls it a subdivision. Subdivisions and small neighborhoods fail WP:GEOLAND, and since nothing really describes the place, WP:GNG is not met either. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dunsinane wants its subdivision back, er, delete since GMaps reveals that it is just a townhouse development. Mangoe (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Based on my online research, this is a real albeit small subdivision outside of Tysons, Virginia, which could be a redirect. There's not a lot online about this, so an article is untenable. On a side note, the English name of this is typical of c. 1980 subdivision names, and there are several streets and small subdivisions with similar names; the idea was to name your streets for British-sounding places to attract upper-middle-class home buyers. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 16:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to National Education Association. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read Across America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is not formatted at all like an encyclopedia. No or very few reliable sources can be found for this article. Interstellarity (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads like an elementary school project. Few notable sources used. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence this passes WP:NORG/WP:NEVENT/GNG. But why is it categorized under fictional elements? It's a real world initiative, not a fictional one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to National Education Association. The event gets lots of local coverage, but I can't find much large-scale coverage beyond this article from Forbes (written by staff) and this notice from the White House. Content needs to be re-written for the merge though, as it currently reads like a press release ("our schools"). Argento Surfer (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is no evidence of the level of secondary source coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested. FWIW, I was formerly affiliated with the NEA. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Spudlace (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Seinfeld (season 9). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Burning (Seinfeld) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I've taken a look, and I can't find a single source that discusses the topic at length, while the standard is that we need multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth. Redirection was attempted and reverted, so I'm taking it to AfD to build consensus. Slashme (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Slashme (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather recommend a redirect than deletion, though. --Slashme (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: You have said to redirect this page on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Articles for every episode and on Talk:The Burning (Seinfeld). Are you saying "delete" as in redirection, or do you actually mean delete? Be more specific. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OcelotCreeper: Sorry for the confusion. I meant redirect to the season article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is discussed in detail in sources such as Seinfeld Reference: The Complete Encyclopedia with Biographies, Character Profiles & Episode Summaries; The Ultimate Guide to Seinfeld; The Seinfeld Universe. The nomination does not propose deletion and so it's just the usual case of WP:IMPERFECT for which WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination was not in any sense based on the quality of the article, so I'm not sure why you're raising WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTCLEANUP. The book sources you mention are a Seinfeld encyclopedia, which is not a secondary source, a TV Guide compendium, and a fan work. They all exist to exhaustively review the show, and therefore of course they mention every episode. That's simply not enough to show that this particular episode is independently notable beyond the show itself. --Slashme (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on this specific article but I think we have a wider problem here. I was leaning towards delete until I realised that we have an article about every single other episode of Seinfeld. That seems grossly excessive to me and reeks of fancruft in that there is almost nothing but plot summary in these articles. The referencing on the few articles I looked at at random varied between shoddy and non-existent. There may also be some plagiarism / copyright violation going on here but I'm not sure in which direction. Maybe that is somebody taking the content from us? I think it would be entirely legitimate to open a single broader discussion on whether the whole set of articles are valid. If they are not, and I'm not hopeful, then it would be nice give the fans a chance to copy them over to a fan wiki (assuming that they are not copyright violations, of course) before deleting them. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  DanielRigal, I believe there was a discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Articles for every episode, which is still ongoing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, everything you said there points to a "delete" as per WP:FANCRUFT, WP:ALLPLOT and failure to meet GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to list article. Not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to list article. This article has maybe one good source that contributes to WP:GNG – the 'Production' section source. AndrewD is once again making the fallacious argument that inclusion in what is basically an "index" somehow contributes to notability – it does not. The fact that this episode is included in an "encyclopedia" of every episode of Seinfeld would tend to support the idea that the entire TV series is notable not that an individual episode is. Once again – most TV episodes do not receive enough independent coverage to clear WP:GNG and should not have separate articles. Even for series like Seinfeld there will be some "filler" episodes (like this) that don't get widespread enough (significant) independent coverage to merit an article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: some sources have been added since I nominated the article, and all of them are works about the series itself. This doesn't help to show independent notability: I still fail to see any indication of impact on wider culture. --Slashme (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Struggling to see any notability. Is a Seinfeld episode really encyclopedia-worthy? An episode from a show about nothing? Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV just for starters. Star7924 (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much anything has the possibility of becoming notable.★Trekker (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom with an ATD of Redirect. All but two (one neutral) has weighed in that the subject is not notable for a stand alone article. It is fan coverage, being one of 180 episodes with all but a couple making it to article space, and predominantly consisting of a plot. The article list 179 episodes apparently omitting The Puerto Rican Day. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

,

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

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

The result was merge to Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai. I see that this has already been done. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

After running WP:BEFORE searches, I have been unable to locate significant coverage of this mine and it seems to fit WP:MILL pretty squarely as it's just a mine in Russia. Because this mine does not appear to be notable, I am nominating it for deletion. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No, it's not "just a mine in Russia" and, in any case, WP:MILL is an essay not a policy or guideline and so has "no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". There are many sources which discuss the place in detail and these make it clear that it's a major source of this strategic mineral, being the biggest in Russia and in the world's top 5. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, can you please share those "many sources" with us or add them to the article? I searched and didn't find any sources that would demonstrate significant coverage such that this article could meet WP:GNG or fit any of the criteria in WP:NGEO. I also did some searching and found nothing to support your claims that this mine is "in the world's top 5" or even an unusually large mine in Russia. I stand by my nomination.DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The exact ranking may vary from year to year and at some point the mine will be worked out. But, for example, this source has it as #4 in the world in 2006. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for sharing that. I see that the source says that it was, at least in 2006, the 4th highest producing uranium mine in the world. That seems like a pretty non-notable distinction to me. In other words, are all mines that are in the top X for a particular mineral or ore notable? I wouldn't be in favor of that and I don't think the fact that a mine was the 4th largest uranium mine nearly 15 years ago, by itself, demonstrates notability. I think we should continue to look to WP:GNG which requires significant coverage of a subject and, at least at this point, I still haven't seen evidence that that standard is met. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It is easy to find evidence of notability such as this paper on the mine's first 25 years. As the nomination is counterfactual and not supported by policy, my !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, if it is "easy to find evidence of notability," please add that evidence to the page so we can resolve this discussion. The article you linked above is (a) one of only two references I found in my BEFORE search, (b) isn't even the actual paper itself, just a one paragraph abstract as far as I can tell, and (c) hardly qualifies as significant coverage (i.e., a one-off report by a regulatory body regarding a subject's existence for X years is clearly not "significant coverage"). You keep responding that there are "many sources" and that they are "easy" to find. And I'm taking you at your word on that because I'm a strong believer in assuming good faith, so if that's the case for you (it wasn't for me), then please simply improve the article by adding them so we can close this debate. I will gladly withdraw this AFD if the article is improved such that significant coverage is shown as I like having more content in Wikipedia so long as its appropriate! Thank you. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have provided specific links to multiple sources while the nominator has provided zero evidence; just empty assertions. My !vote stands per WP:SHRUBBERY. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think further discussion between the two of us is going to be productive but thank you for weighing in. I'd just like to clearly state for anyone else considering this AFD that these "multiple sources" being referred to here are only (1) a single reference in a table stating that, in 2006, the mine was a large uranium mine and (2) an abstract of a regulatory report acknowledging that the mine has existed for 25 years. My point, throughout this process, has been that there is not significant coverage demonstrating notability and, if anything, this process has only made that conclusion clearer IMHO. DocFreeman24 (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dismissing WP:MILL as just an essay means only that you, Andrew, apparently disagree with it. If I am mistaken, and you do agree with it, then it doesn't matter that it has no official status because (a) WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and (b) you would personally advance the same argument. But in the other case, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY still applies in the inverse: the argument it makes isn't magically wrong due to its lack of official endorsement. Personally, I find the essay entirely consistent as an explanation of one element of the GNG. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• MILL's status as an unofficial essay is a plain fact. And, in any case, it is not appropriate to this subject because the place in question is exceptional. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, have left a message on the mining project talkpage about this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That project seems to be quite dead -- about the only postings there this year are Coolabahapple's appeals. It seems that we have many inspectors but no miners. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai, leaving redirect; it's a small stub which can easily be incorporated in a section. I don't think that the subject is unnotable (I wouldn't oppose recreation with further content), just that the current article is short even for a stub, and does not therefore merit it's own article. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC) P.S. WP:WikiProject Mining isn't quite dead; it has notified at least me of this discussion.[reply]
• Delete or at least merge/redirect, the article doesn't establish notability. The original author has a long history of creating articles about mines that either:
  1. Are not not sourced to anything reliable
  2. Has sources which don't reference the subject at all
  3. Claim to be one of the "largest mines in the country, and the world" when there is not actually a mine there at all, it's just a depoisit.

Without notability established within the article, delete/merge/redirect (whatever I don't care), but it shouldn't stand alone as is. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. This substub is very bad, and my search for sources turns up next to nothing. However, recently I did some search for sources about a Polish coal mine and found quite a few, mostly in Polish-language engineering journals. Which leads me to speculate that sources may exist - in Russian. That, however, needs to be verified by a Russian speaker. I suggest this AfD is not closed until a Russian speaker has done a search for such sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC) PS. I've changed my vote to abstein in light of sources being found below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a mine, the "Priargunsky mine" appears to be just an ordinary mine of little siginifcance presuming it even exists and not a garbled misinterpretation of Priargunsky Centre. The Priargunsky Centre is part of the Streltsovskiy district. It was and still is a significance region for the production of uranium for the Russian Federation. Is is also an area where significant research has gone into the reclamantion of abandoned mined lands and the mitigation of environmental concerns associated with large-scale mining. One problem is that the vast majority of the numerous articles about the Priargunsky Centre are in Russian and unaccessible as translations. The Priargunsky Centre (also known as the Priargunsky Mining-Chemical Production Association ???) is a significant uranium mining and processing entity in Trans-Baikal Territory of the Russian Federation. A summary article is:
• Boitsov, A.V., Nikolsky, A.L., Chernigov, V.G. and Ovseichuk, V.A., 2000. Uranium production at the Priargunsky Centre (Russian Federation) and its impact on the environment (No. IAEA-SM--362). Paul H. (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment A "Priargunsky Mining and Chemical plant" is mentioned in: 1. Morozov, A. and Litvinenko, V., 2014. Development of the heap leaching of low-grade uranium ores for conditions of OJSC Priargunsky Mining and Chemical plant (PPGKhO), No. IAEA-CN--216. and 2. Pokrovskij, S.S., 1993. Priargunsky industrial mine-chemical association marks 25-th anniversary. Gornyj Zhurnal, pp.3-9. Could "Priargunsky Mining and Chemical plant" be the correct name for the "Priargunsky Mine"? Paul H. (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ru:Приаргунское производственное горно-химическое объединение They have a lignit mine and an underground uranium mine.

http://priargunsky.armz.ru/en/ Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, add more sources. A mine seems a much more notable thing than various sandwiches eaten in America or micro-NGOs promoting street dogs or whatnot. Sources above make seem it is quite a big mine as mines go. A large mine seems like a very notable thing considering the geographical area it occupies, money and jobs it has garnered, products produced, pollution, you name it. Leo Breman (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai I found plenty of sources for mining in Krasnokamensk such as [2],

[3], [4], [5], [6], but nothing SIGCOV with the name Priargunsky mine.   // Timothy :: talk  19:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Merge. On the delete side, the Bine Mai created this article and that user has created 3,657 articles, 3.2% of which have been deleted. 3.2% seems high to me and it seems like they create articles and have not been going back and expanding them. I've seen this in other geography-related articles. I was skeptical about getting involved in the discussion of this article, but as it has not been resolved, here goes. If the mine was a community, then it might meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND because there are a few scholarly articles about the mine such as [7]. Unfortunately, the paper on the mine's first 25 years is only in Russian and not available on line, so I don't feel it can be added to the article as a reference. There are also mentions of the mine in various other references. One question is whether these sources are WP:RS. However, the Washington Post article is non-trivial coverage in a WP:RS source for the mine. However, this is not a community - it is a mine. With mines, there are often lots of articles about a non-notable mine, including mining stock press releases that are definitely not WP:RS. I found it interesting to compare this article with other uranium mines listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Articles for Verification. Most of the other articles are stubs and I don't think that they have as large a production as this location. If this gets deleted, the we really need to go through all the other mine pages listed (starting with uranium mines) and apply the same standards. As an absurd exercise, if we apply the metric that only the top three producers of each product are notable, then we should be able to quickly cut the list down :-)

The primary reason to keep this article is because it was the number one source of uranium in Russia for an entire decade (1988-1998 and 1992-2002). This makes it notable. My opinion is that where Russia gets its uranium is very interesting in part because Russia has nuclear weapons that need feedstock. Also, in 2006 it was the #4 producer of uranium world-wide. I've added support for this to the article. That said, merging with Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Kraiwould also be OK with me. Cxbrx (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As Cxbrx thinks that 3.2% is high, note that 3.4% of their own creations have been deleted! Andrew🐉(talk) 20:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh. Well played. However, I have created only 29 articles and 1 has been deleted, so it is the problem of a small sample size. The article that was deleted concerned a company that was involved in a controversy about the Airbus 380, see Joseph Mangan. I let it slide because I had previously tangled with editors who are Airbus proponents and am adverse to conflict on Wikipedia - there are just too many things to do. The reason I bring up the number of articles deleted is because it seems that a few authors have generated a huge number of stub articles and then never gone back and filled them in. This has generated quite a bit of work. See WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force#I've got it! and below on that page. Also, this is at least the second stub article I've run in to that was created by the same editor that had problems.

About this mine, there is a 2006 NY Times article. As we now have a NY Times and a WA Post article, I think we have suitable coverage. See also Radio Free Europe and Greenpeace photos and text. I've spent quite a bit of time cleaning up non-notable geography articles, primarily in Nevada and California, but this mine seems notable to me. The NY Times article states that Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai is only present because of the mine and suggests that when the mine is gone, the town will disappear. So in many ways, this mine is more notable than some random Russian town. I'd be OK with a merge, do you want to take a shot at merging the text from the mine over to Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai? Cxbrx (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from Nominator. I'd like to thank everyone who participated in this AfD and, in particular, the folks who improved the article by finding sources. To the extent it matters, I no longer favor deletion and think that, at most, this article should be merged, if not kept outright. It seems that at least some of the issues I was concerned about regarding notability arise from naming issues that made it hard for me to find reliable sources. So, having read more closely at the points/sources folks were making, I think this article probably meets GNG now. Thanks again to everyone who participated and made this article better! DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I decided to be WP:BEBOLD and went ahead and merged the contents of the Priargunsky mine article in to the Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai article in part because Priargunsky mine is pretty much an orphan. If there is disagreement, then I'll pull my changes. BTW - I hate seeing text duplicated, but it seems to be very common. In the past, I've tried using WP:TRANS, but my changes have been reverted by an editor who states that transclusion does not work in their viewer. I've changed my vote to Merge. If there is no disagreement, I leave it to an admin to do the merge. Cxbrx (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renee V. H. Simons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a single in-depth source about the subject of the article. While inspirational, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge She worked to get it listed in the NRHP, could be a brief mention in that article. Not enough on her own to warrant notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Her experience in sharing her corporate knowledge with Taproot after climbing the ladder to a senior vice presidency, combined with her efforts post-professional life in non-profits should provide the notability. While mentions in the times and in magazine articles are reputable sources, her story, is one of striving to succeed as a black woman in corporate america, who leveraged that to the benefit of her community. The article in black enterprise is in depth and worth reading to learn about this facinating person. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with NGOs. Great for her her life turned out fine, but not a particularly notable person. Not my field, but dozens of people I know might as well get wikipedia articles if this is the bar. Sentences like "worked at fortune 500 companies" silly, so has every dude stocking shelves at Walmart. Leo Breman (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article seems to me to straddle the line of WP:GNG, with the Black Enterprise profile, significant coverage in the context of a number of the SANS articles, and the multiple minor business awards. I acknowledge that my opinion is influenced by the hundreds of stubs that we keep because the person stepped on to the pitch once. In this instance, we have a black woman achieving moderate success in the corporate world and then having a significant impact on her community. I think the cumulative effect of the coverage is sufficient to keep the article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Recently created and cites almost no sources. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No in-depth coverage from sources. I tried to verify the award she supposedly got from YMCA but the reference is just her CV posted as a short biographical note to an event she spoke, thus an autobiography. Searching on the net for her name-YMCA-award combination the only results I got back was the WP article and the abovementioned reference on the subject. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG Kolma8 (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:GNG - additions and revisions to the article help show the significance of coverage that has been WP:SUSTAINED, and that Simons is not WP:LOWPROFILE, e.g. Simons has given "one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication," and has "participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for ... a cause" that has been documented directly and in detail by multiple sources. Per WP:BASIC, the combination of multiple independent sources in the article seems to help demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

concept does not appear to exist outside of a wikipedia editors mind. Has never had a single reference in 13 years. Brief look at internet has the word 'biomics' used as a slogan/part of a name in various biomedical university groups (2x Netherlands, France, Russia), biotech companies (Germany, Netherlands), pharmaceutical businesses (China, Mexico, UK, ), an educational library site with webinars, three businesses doing microbial assays -one for aquaria (in Belgium/Germany, France, US), various herbal supplement companies, a Chinese fish oil company, an American agricultural start-up developing 'organic' pesticide chemicals, a sketchy company selling ...uh... a holistic life revolution with an entirely new class of drugs which will heal anything... there is a company way at the end of the my third search page which appears to use the term in a wikipedia way -except they call it envirobiomics and invent a whole bunch of new words with -omics in there -but this company was founded after the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo Breman (talk • contribs) 15:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The few hits on GBooks and Google Scholar do not use this term to refer to what this article is about. Not a notable concept. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of those words that's easy enough to coin that it gets tossed around now and then, but not a topic we need an article for. XOR'easter (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The study of biomes using bioinformatics is certainly a thing, but the word 'biomics' in relation to that seems to be a neologism. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Lutheran Church (Highland, Wisconsin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Run of the mill non-notable congregation. Many churches are notable because they're listed on the NRHP. This one is not. The building is mentioned in one source that doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV, but there's nothing whatsoever about the Lutheran church. schetm (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Highland, Wisconsin. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article but worthy of a small paragraph in the village article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 19:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable congregation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per Nom. Found nothing of significance on the church or the building. Otr500 (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not worthy of mention in the community's article in my humble opinion. Royalbroil 05:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No information about the band at all. The sources are about lead singer and another band. ClaireCaron (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The band was only ever mentioned as a background tidbit in media stories on the murder of their singer, and occasionally in chatter by groups who think that singer is a hero. And even those are rare. Very briefly mentioned in the book used for footnote #2, but only as an example of their genre. The band is a non-entity in every other way. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Doomsdayer. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completly non-notable.★Trekker (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Council of British International Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Extensively edited by WP:COI WP:SPA editors yet still entirely lacking in reliable, verifiable, independent sources. The only independent sources I've come across are of the rent-a-quote variety. Comprehensively fails to meet the requirements of WP:NORG. If it weren't for its longevity of 12 years I'd tag it for WP:G11. Cabayi (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT - I looked the page over and I think it should be blown up and deleted WP:COATRACK There's probably a notable subject here but the article needs to be blown up and started over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 16:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Clicking on the link provided (News) produces 259 results. It starts with UK Government 1 Sepember 2020 You can't get more recent or Notable than that. It is a stub- it needs work, not long essays or discussion.--ClemRutter (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Week Keep this is probably notable, although that isn't clear from the status. @ClemRutter: did you include the right link? What I see is someone from the council attended a meeting, which doesn't establish anything. StarM 03:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@StarM: You are right. Notable, this is the sort of umbrella organisation that does't generate press coverage deliberately. I included the reference as it shows it sits at the top table of government. I am not writing the article, so |I didn't dig deeper. Try this independentschoolparent.com article Googling is not helpful as most link to its marketing acronym COBIS- and that acronym is used by others. International School Search is another article which will be useful in expanding what we have got. ClemRutter (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or send to draft as 'undersourced, incubate in draftspace'. Evil laugh. It's not notable as it stands, has zero independent coverage. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found this "The Council of British International Schools (COBIS) represented 250 schools, yet this was allegedly only to be about 15% of the total 'British-ethos' school global market (Lynch, 2008). The Federation of British International Schools in South ..." at https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Changing_Landscape_of_International/p-rpAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Council+of+British+International+Schools%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT105&printsec=frontcover but I am not sure if works to support or detract from notability. My google search was inconclusive. Jeepday (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impax Asset Management Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

does not meet current standards of notability -- see WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article seems to be reasonably well-written. The company seems to be notable in that it manages a number of large listed entities. Dormskirk (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

neither of these factors have anything to do with notability in Wikipedia DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough (and I know decisions here seem to be made on the basis of the narrow criteria in WP:NCORP) but in "real world importance" the company has been described by the Financial Times journalist and author, Alice Ross, as one of just three fund managers identified that has "consistently focussed on the environment". Dormskirk (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a criteria either. scope_creep^Talk 10:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, even if "real world importance" is of no importance (but see WP:IAR), it does have coverage in the Financial Times, Investors Chronicle, Financial News and Investment Week, amongst others. Dormskirk (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep updates by Dormskirk seem to indicate that the subject of the article meets WP:ORGCRIT 'is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.' Jeepday (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - asset managers and funds are not inherently notable. It would have to have Hundreds of Billions in assets to be notable. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• comment ::I notice that on SarahSV's talk page, Dormskirk (talk · contribs) makes the argument "My direction of travel remains that the efforts of companies that do really good things for the environment should be recognised." My own view is that this is the very opposite of WP:NPOV, destructive of the purpose of an encyclopedia, turning it into a publication like Charity Navigator. Advocacy can be an excellent thing—elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• comment ::I do understand and respect the point that DGG is making here - it is a very good one. I also strongly suspect that this article started life as one which was initiated by an editor with a conflict of interest. That said, I still think it would probably be a mistake to delete the article. Dormskirk (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as noted above, the company is not any more inherently notable than any other asset management company. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2020 (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 as they rely on company announcement and interviews, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Costello, Miles (2019-11-19). "Impax Environmental Markets: A sustainable way to make money". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-12-14. Retrieved 2020-12-14.

     The article notes:

     Among the oldest of these is Impax Environmental Markets, an investment trust that has been going since 2002. It was set up and is managed by Impax Asset Management, a firm founded in 1998 with backing from the International Finance Corporation, part of the World Bank.

     ...

     Yet while Impax Asset Management is wedded to some lofty principles, it is also very serious about the business of making money. It has begun to cast its net far beyond the conventional remits of renewable energy and recycled waste into areas such as sustainable food and fashion and the use of technology to reduce waste and the use of raw materials across industrial sectors. With sustainability at its core, this is pretty pioneering stuff.

  2. Newman, Alex (2019-12-06). "Investors Chronicle: Impax Asset Management, Reach, Ted Baker". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-12-14. Retrieved 2020-12-14.

     The article notes: "It is abundantly clear that Impax’s sustainable investing mandates are both in demand and delivering for clients, writes Alex Newman. The past year has been marked by “unprecedented concern globally about environmental issues and rapidly expanding opportunities”, in the words of Impax Asset Management’s chairman Keith Falconer. It is hard to contest that view. Equally, it is hard to think of a UK-listed financial services group better placed to capitalise on this momentous, even exponential, shift."

  3. Rice, Nick (2010-04-19). "Investment Adviser: In the spotlight: Impax Asset Management". Investment Adviser. Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-12-14. Retrieved 2020-12-14.

     The article notes: "Investors might worry about Impax's relatively small size and lack of diversity, but Mr Simm points out larger institutions have also taken a stake. BNP Paribas Investment Partners holds 28 per cent of the company, Rathbones has 7 per cent through its in-house portfolios, and Diam Asset Management holds 5 per cent. ... Investors must judge Impax's investment case on the basis of current valuations, and whether they believe the environment is one of the key themes of the future."

  4. Stankovska, Simona (2011-09-26). "Investment Adviser: Company profile: Impax Asset Management". Investment Adviser. Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-12-14. Retrieved 2020-12-14.

     The article notes: "Established in October 1998 by chief executive Ian Simmchief executive Ian Simm, the company only invests in environmentally focused equities such as renewable energy, water and waste management. ... In spite of turbulent economic conditions, Impax's largest fund, the GBP204.1m Impax Environmental Markets, a Dublin-domiciled global equities product launched in February 2002, has managed to outperform its sector, Offshore Equity Ethical, by 1.79 percentage points in the year to September 15."

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

  Cunard (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That Impax Asset Management Group has been profiled in the Financial Times and The Times strongly establishes it is notable. That the sources include quotes from people affiliated with the company (it is good journalistic practice for reporters to speak to the subjects of their articles) does not make the articles non-independent as there is independent analysis and reporting from the journalists.

  Cunard (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • DGG, what is your view about the sources cited above? Sandstein 08:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG Kolma8 (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Cunard, are you willing to rewrite the article? DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the version of the article when you nominated it for deletion. Dormskirk (talk · contribs) has done an excellent job rewriting and substantially expanding the article since it was nominated. The article is neutrally written and balanced. It includes critical commentary about Impax: "The company was criticised again, this time by the Investment Association, over executive pay in December 2018." And "After 23.7% of shareholders voted against the re-appointment of EY as the company's auditor in May 2018,[9] the company was criticised by the Investment Association, over an apparent lack of independence of EY as its auditor, in December 2018."

  It would be inadvisable for me to rewrite an article that another neutral established editor has already done a great job rewriting.

  Cunard (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will defer to Cunard on this in the first instance but I would be content to work some of this material into the article if Cunard does not have time - particularly the material from Miles Costello of The Times which refers to "pretty pioneering stuff" and the material from Alex Newman of the Financial Times which refers to the company's ability to capitalise on "this momentous, even exponential, shift". Some of the language may need to be toned down a bit. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Dormskirk. Thank you for pointing out the sources' commentary about Impax which strongly establishes notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage noting that, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization". Thank you for your great work on the article. Please continue your excellent work on improving the article. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cunard - Very many thanks for your kind comments, which have restored some of my faith in wikipedia. This is not the first time that I have come here to try and improve an article which I thought was worthy of improvement but whenever I have done so in the past my efforts, which were always in good faith, have been either condemned or otherwise criticised. You are a credit to the project. Thank you and best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disappointed to hear that some editors fail to value your excellent work. They should encourage you to keep doing the great work you've been doing instead of condemning or criticising your work. I have encountered this frequently in my past work at AfD too, so I really relate to your experience. Cunard (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis of the improvements made, though I think it can be tightened a little , and I may do it. I can't withdraw the AfD as someone else has !voted delete, but I think it can be closed. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for that. Dormskirk (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for withdrawing the AfD. Cunard (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, while the article has been expanded recently, a lot of it is {particularly the History section) is opinioned trivia or puffery; what this journalist thought, what that person noted, what that employee did outside of the organisation etc, and not a lot of stating what it does and how it is notable. Asset managers can have a large net work due to the value of the assets under management, but aside from periodically buying and selling assets, they don't do much, hence are rarely notable enough for an article. Busztrax (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Topos show a railroad spur with a bunch of oil tanks, while Newspapers.com hits are all passing mentions of the Maltha Station. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Zelig Genuth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of notability, as defined by WP:BASIC. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Local rabbi does not make good. He's not even the father of David L. Genuth (according to the latter's article and geni.com). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The son has the same name only. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources have been provided other than Geni.com, which as a genealogy site is generally considered unreliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Low participation, but the CV concerns are enough to push me to a delete vs a soft delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:CRIME. Seems to be nothing more than a local event. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article's sensational tone comes, at least in part, from it copying from its sources. NOLA.com substantially: very close paraphrasing and word-for-word in places. I can't check the paywalled Newsbank article. The article is otherwise a biography of one spectacular event. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Substantially a one-event biography. Two local hoodlums made one burst of national news in a shootout with police. Coverage outside the event is routine in nature and local. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the Swedish Armed Forces in 1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks notability (as evidence by reliable, independent, indepth sources) for this specific combination.

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle, individual countries have been nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989, and the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Danish Armed Forces in 1989. Fram (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete largely unreferenced and nothing showing that 1989 was in any way notable for the Swedish armed forces.Mztourist (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedence, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and that Sweden wasn't even a Nato member. Geschichte (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – it is an impressive collection of information, but 1989 was not a particularly significant year for the Swedish armed forces, so the topic is not notable. In addition, I don't doubt that the information comes from somewhere but as there are almost no sources in the article, we can't tell how much is original research. --bonadea contributions talk 16:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sweden's neutrality is irrelevant. The organisation of forces at particular points might be notable, but it would be necessary to have a series of articles on the situation at particular dates, to indicate the situation before and after reorganisations. 1989 looks like a random year, so that I also lean towards deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand the intent of the creators properly, 1989 is in no way random - it represents the last year, realistically, a war could have broken out between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, where Sweden would have been in the firing line due to its position between the bulk of Norway and the Soviet Union. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not discussed at all on the page and is a highly debatable "what if", nothing to show that 1989 was any more significant than any other preceding year. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you that that is not brought out on the page. But to say that war could have broken out in 1990, 1991, or 1992 is "highly debatable" as opposed to 1989 is ridiculous: by October 1990 East Germany had merged with West Germany!! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suggest that you reread what I wrote. "Preceding year" means before 1989. Mztourist (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Whatever the level of sourcing per NNC on each individual item of this list, we cannot start to create new articles for any phenomena that are not *mentioned* in the encyclopedia - they have to be mentioned somewhere a first time. For both navigating the structure of the Swedish Armed Forces historically, and for developing more detailed coverage and new pages on the individual entities of the Swedish Armed Forces, any concerns about each individual entry meeting the GNG in detail should be put aside, so the coverage of the Swedish Armed Forces can be further developed, and their structure navigated more effectively. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been replied to this argument before, that is nonsense: "we cannot start to create new articles for any phenomena that are not *mentioned* in the encyclopedia". Being an orphan is not a reason to be deleted, or not to be created. This list has no bearing on the acceptability of any other article. Second: "any concerns about each individual entry meeting the GNG in detail": I hoped that after all these AfDs, you would finally know that this is not the concern at all. The combined subject, the structure of the army in 1989, has to meet the GNG. That doesn't mean that every individual entry has to be notable, no one ever asked for this and this was never the deletion argument. Fram (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has been shown elsewhere, closing administrators have been impressed enough by the notability of these kind of article to reject your repeated assertions that they all lack notability - the Danish deletion attempt failed. As is repeatedly shown in the official documents, the structure of the Armed Forces is detailed in depth (reliable); more generally, Sweden and its defence and its changes with the end of the Cold War are discussed in all kinds of sources (independent); this satisfies the notability requirement. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's see, two "delete"s and one "no consensus", that's hardly an overwhelming "rejection" by "administrators"? "Official documents", as has been explained at nauseam, are fine for verifiability, not for notability. The independent sources are more general, not about 1989 (as evidenced by e.g. a source including "1988-2009" in its title). Fram (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1st: there is an equivalent article on the Swedish wikipedia sv:Svenska försvarsmaktens organisation 1989, which is identical to this one. 2nd: Sweden, as a neutral country directly opposite the Warsaw Pact, was one of the most militarized nations during the Cold War (29 wartime brigades vs. 48 wartime brigades in Germany, which had 10 times the population) and therefore is notable as a Cold War participant. 3rd: The year 1989 was chosen as in that year the Swedish Armed Forces reached their zenith in strength as defined by the sv:Försvarsbeslutet 1987 law, which originally defined the Swedish Armed Forces Structure from 1987 to 1992. However in December 1989 with the Cold War over the sv:Försvarsutredning 1988 inquiry was voted into law, which ordered the armed forces to drawdown its units starting in 1990. 1989 was the zenith of Swedish military might. 4th: On the Swedish wikipedia this article is part of a series of articles regarding the development of the Swedish Armed Forces over time: i.e. sv:Svenska försvarsmaktens organisation 1999. 5th: The Swedish wikipedia also lists a series of books dealing with the Försvarsbeslutet 1987 and the resulting armed forces structure:

• Skoglund, Claës (2009). Det bästa försvarsbeslutet som aldrig kom till stånd. Svenskt Militärhistoriskt Biblioteks Förlag. ISBN 978-91-85789-57-3 (inb.)
• Agrel, Wilhelm (2009). Fredens Illusioner - Det svenska nationella försvarets nedgång och fall 1988-2009. Atlantis. ISBN 978-91-7353-417-8 (inb.)
• Björeman, Carl (2009). År av uppgång, år av nedgång - Försvarets ödesväg under beredskapsåren och det kalla kriget. Svenskt Militärhistoriskt Biblioteks Förlag. ISBN 978-91-85789-58-0 (inb.)
• Hugemark, Bo, red (2015). Den stora armén. Skrift / Forskningsprojektet Försvaret och det kalla kriget (FOKK), 1652-5388 ; 44. Stockholm: Medström i samarbete med forskningsprojektet Försvaret och det kalla kriget (FoKK). Libris länk. ISBN 9789173291231

In summary: a notable year, a notable armed force, a notable topic, a needed article - therefore "Keep". noclador (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A WP page in another language doesn't establish notability particularly as the Swedish page was created on 7 November 2016 after you created this page on 7 October 2016. Provide RS for your assertions that: Sweden "was one of the most militarized nations during the Cold War" and "1989 was the zenith of Swedish military might" Mztourist (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 75,000 bytes stood up on 7 references. Undersourced, insanely detailed, packed with redlinks and as far as I can see has no raison d'etre. If you put a citeneeded template for every assertion with no reference, you'd double the size of this leviathan. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article meets WP:CLN WP:AOAL for keeping a list. 1989 is a major milestone year in the Cold War. Per CLN "Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks".   // Timothy :: talk  04:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been explained before, "not meeting CLN AOAL" is not the reason to delete these, so meeting these is a strawman. AOAL explains what the advantages of a list are over a category or a navigational template, but this is irrelevant. I'm not really sure how a 4-year old, 75kB list is supposed to be " a rudimentary list", but in any case that sentence is "in comparison to categories". A category for the 1989 order of battle would be an equally bad idea. Fram (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not matter that the nom ignored CLN, AOAL in their reason to delete; Noms usually fail to mention or sidestep reasons to keep an article. In this case the article clearly meets CLN, AOAL and meeting this negates that reason the nom gave for deleting when it states, "Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks" AOAL is not dependent on the existence of a category, but there is a category Category:Military units and formations of Sweden Category:Structures of military commands and formations in 1989, but the header of CLN states that the existence of a category is irrelevant when considering the value of a list.   // Timothy :: talk  09:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS The lead and section headers do need expansion, I will do so if the list is kept.   // Timothy :: talk 

• • • • I don't think you really understand categories and lists and how they are treated in CLN, if you somehow equate the contents of the list with the existence of a category the list belongs to. What CLN is really about, is if we had a category "structure of the Swedish armed forces in 1989" where the actual entries of this page, this list, belonged to (so the individual battalions or formations or ...). The comparison you make here between the list under discussion, and the category "Structures of military commands and formations in 1989" is not relevant at all. WP:AOAL is "Compared with a category, a list may have both advantages and disadvantages." and then listing these advantages; this has nothing to do with whether the list should be kept or deleted for notability reasons, and I am not ignoring it as a reason to keep the article. The whole page you cling to is only about the distinction and overlap between cats, lists and nav, and that having one is not a reason to delete the other. Nothing on that page addresses whether a list should be kept on its own merits or not, which is what is being discussed here. I hope some kind closing admin will explain this to you. Fram (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I replaced the category above with the correct one Category:Military units and formations of Sweden. You're condensing and frankly insulting comments such as "I hope some kind closing admin will explain this to you" are uncivil. We've both been at AFD long enough to know individuals can hold valid though different opinions on guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  11:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • That people can hold valid but different opinions, doesn't mean that people can't have invalid opinions as well. Note that the category you now used, "Category:Military units and formations of Sweden", isn't about 1989 (or any other year), so is not an equivalent of the list we are discussing here. Your whole argument is a strawman because a) no one is suggesting deleting this list "because we have a category for it", but because the list topic isn't notable, and b) we don't have a category for the structure of the swedish armed forces in 1989 anyway, so no one could be making the argument you are trying to counter. As an example: if someone was arguing that List of Swedish Army brigades should be deleted because we have Category:Brigades of the Swedish Army, then your references to CLN would be perfectly valid. The current sitation is completely different though. Fram (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Orientls (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Completely non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another poorly sourced order of battle article relating to an arbitrary year. Of the five sources linked in the article, four are broken links (and one is dated as of 1977, thus making it a poor source for the structure of the armed forces in 1989). The other is, apparently, the Swedish 5-year defense plan as of 1987 -- which may reflect a plan for 1989 but does not establish what the Swedish armed forces actually had in 1989. Also, the article lead says that the article was created from, among other sources, "the Swedish Wikipedia articles about Swedish units histories", although Wikipedias are not themselves reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta Bachchan Nanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability not inherited. No major works/achievements to pass WP:NACTOR or WP:AUTHOR. Her coverages are mainly due to being the daughter of two significant people. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Yes, notability not inherited. However, she wrote a novel and also acted in a movie. Such persons are notable but it's a high bar. Dwain09877 (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please share the film she acted in major role, not aware of this and failed to find any references. Simply writing a novel isn't enough to pass WP:AUTHOR either. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an ad film. Just checked thoroughly. Yeah, I changed my mind now. Dwain09877 (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge with Amitabh Bachchan#Early life and family. Redirects are cheap. I agree with @The9Man: that she is not remarkable enough to have her own article, but there is no reason why Amitabh Bachchan her dad's article could not have a paragraph about her. Did you pursue other options before deleting this page? I see no reason to delete the article and destroy the usable information. Few years back I had searched for her name, and I can imagine more people may be looking for her as she is the daughter of BigB. @Dwain09877: what do you think about my suggestion? Walrus Ji (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's listen to other editors, too. Dwain09877 (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes merge as suggested above.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - okay, I've expanded it now, sources added. Definitely notable and not at all due to her family background. Her parents and position might have given her the opportunity, but she is her own person and her individual work has been gaining wide coverage - the author of a bestselling book, a columnist for DNA India and Vogue India, always in the news for her different ventures, including the fashion label she lauched. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Excellent job by User:Shshshsh to fix this article's issues, by removing cruft and adding sources. VocalIndia (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has seen significantly expanded. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher, VocalIndia, and Shshshsh: After reading your reply I am scratching my head here, as clearly I dont see anything remarkable in her achievement. that you are seeing. None of you have provided any link for the rule which proves that this person deserves her own article. It seems likely that you are referring to some rule that is not mentioned either on WP:NACTOR or WP:AUTHOR. Just writing a novel that gets a review article is not a remarkable achievement, being a columnist in a newspaper is also not a rule anywhere for an article. Even the article about the book seem to be there only because of her being BigB daughter. The rule on Wikipedia NAUTHOR demands "the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Even WP:GNG demands "significant coverage in multiple media". I see no criteria being met here for keeping the individual article as of now. Walrus Ji (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, actually it is me who's scratching his head right now. You are clearly misinterpreting WP:N here, and I don't mean to be disparaging to you. If you feel something about this (IMO redundant) nomination, then cast your vote like everybody else does. She's not an actor at all, so drop the WP:NACTOR; if you don't want to see her as an author, forget WP:NAUTHOR as well. But indeed, the general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in multiple media", just as you've quoted here, and she's got plenty of it for her individual activity. Does she get all that attention because of her family background? Probably, so? That you do not see "anything remarkable in her achievement" is strictly your personal opinion, and subjective positions cannot be guiding us here. I can give you names of many celebs who are pretty much famous without a reason, so it's not really a valid rationale. Bachchan-Nanda has written a bestselling book (which has been reviewed all over the Indian press; two cited in the article), columns in a leading newspaper and a high-profile magazine, her fashion label has been widely publicised. All of it is not my own knowledge, it has been reported in numerous reliable sources, some of which are cited in the article. I specifically took the time to support every single claim with several sources, to not leave doubts about the "significant coverage in multiple media" she gets. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh:, I am not saying you are wrong, just askign what I am missing here. I am not misinterpreting anything, I just quoted from the notability rules that others have mentioned. I had to quote because folks above seem to unaware of the high bar needed for WP:BIO articles. May be they did not bother to read the rule so I quoted it. A fashion label or a book may be highly publicised because of "Paid publicity", they need to be disregarded. In fact most of the articles listed as a reference are PR piece/advertorials for the channel or her cloth company or her novel, most of which mention her parent in the title. WP:GNG demands "significant coverage in multiple media". If you think GNG is met, then please post those links below for review. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, most of what you said about the articles being "paid publicity" and "PR piece" is baseless and pure speculation, and the burden of evidence in this case is on you. As a matter of fact, the reviews cited are highly critical of her book, so I can't see how you even come to such conclusions. All the sources more than meet WP:RS, most are newspapers, their authors provided, and there are many more. Whether her parents are mentioned or not (and in most cases, as opposed to what you've said here, they're not), matters less. I certainly do not have to post links on this page, I've cited them in the article as inline citations, and if you think any of them does not meet WP's reliability guideline, please explain it here, providing the right kind of evidence. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are only repeating yourself without adding evidence, so I will end this discussion with my parting comment. She fails WP:NAUTHOR for reasons stated above, prominently as her book is not a remarkable work, no awards. She fails WP:GNG because so far none of sources that I see in the ref section or my searches are " significant coverage " of her Biography. On top of that not one link was presented here, despite asking. I will continue with my original assessment of "Redirect". --Walrus Ji (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you are repeating yourself, in addition to clearly not having read my reply to you. She is not an author, so WP:NAUTHOR is not relevant, she is a person who wrote a bestselling book. The awards part is almost funny, I can give you many, many iconic books which haven't won any award, and why would she win an award for a book which was a critical failure? The fact is that the book was well covered in the press, and if anyone has to provide here evidence, it is you, my friend, for your baseless, speculative, and unsubstantiated claims of some paid publicity and bad faith on the reliable sources, which reviewed her work negatively. The page provides sources which actually do provide significant coverage of Bachchan-Nanda, because every claim is supported by different articles from different reliable publications. As for presenting links here, I'll happily repeat myself here again - they are presented as inline citations in the article, no need to present them here, that's not how it works. She is a notable person for her many ventures - not necessarily her book but her entire activity altogether. That's it, thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the subject a best selling author is laughable, to say the least. Appear on a website as the second-most selling book on a certain week doesn't make it a 'best selling book'. And getting a passing coverage on the same by her notable father's Instagram post is not remarkable either. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree to disagree. In any case, she gets wide coverage for her work in the media - sufficient of a reason to assume her notability on WP. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not inherited. Not notable as an actress nor author. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, notability is indeed not inherited, but it looks like you haven't even looked into the article. She is not an actress, never was. Moreover, many of the sources, do not even mention her father, so the claim that her notability is inherited is probably not relevant here. You can look at her as just a celebrity. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - more sources and information added. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the updates. As commented already above, Redirect is still the preferred option in my opinion. Delete is the second option. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've already established that this is your opinion, and I had no doubt that it would not change, although you haven't fully explained why in view of the currently well-sourced article. Furthermore, I must note that you have yet to provide evidence for the unsubstantiated claims you've made above about the reliable sources cited in the article. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following WP:BEFORE#C4, quote "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term". Indeed this is a valid search term and this article should be merged and redirected. Walrus Ji (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misinterpreting the policy. The subject is important - it totally abides by WP:GNG. She is a celebrity and writer, whose every activity receives significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (you called some of them "paid publicity" - I mean, negative reviews of her book!). Anyway, the subject is notable (even I didn't think she'd be), and I think the easy thing is stopping by and dismissing it time and again just for the sake of it. It is more challenging to put effort into saving it, improve it, and that's what I did no matter the outcome. That's the spirit of Wikipedia. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn the meaning of "misinterpret", it is not what you think it is. You have failed to prove any such claims on notability. Let me correct your lines. "She is a (daughter of a) celebrity and (obscure) writer, whose every activity receives significant Trivial coverage (due to her celebrity parents and promotional advertisements.)" Walrus Ji (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, what do you want? Didn't you already vote? Secondly, calm down there, and if anyone needs to learn, it is probably you (ironically, your very first sentence ignores the rules of punctuation, changed after my message, and so does the third), so let me teach you: see misinterpret on Wiktionary, that's exactly true of your behaviour. You're again posting here blatant lies. The claims of notability have been proven beyond doubt, look at the article, which is perfectly sourced now with many reliable sources. Please read WP:N again. You, on the other hand, are repeating the same senseless claims about "paid publicity" and "trivial". Where is your evidence? I don't know what you mean by trivial coverage, the sources on the article show that she gets significant coverage with articles written about her and her parents not being even mentioned. Your claims are baseless, mine are supported by the work I've done. Now I've had enough with carrying a fruitless debate with a new user who's never even contributed to Wikipedia. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS talks about the quality of the argument and presence of evidence. It does not say anything about edit count or dick size. Your personal attacks have been noted. You are hereby warned to strictly limit your comment to the topic and refrain from making comments on the editors.Walrus Ji (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that made me laugh. Now you're also misusing WP:NPA. At no point did I discuss you. I, as opposed to you, did stick to the content until you wrote "you need to learn..." - that is discussing me and not the content, so please, at least practice what you preach. The only one here who adheres to WP:CON happens to be me, frankly, as I was the one to expand the article with reliable sources, and you just attacked the subject and the reliable sources with some weird speculations, to which no evidence has been attached right to this moment. Another misinterpretation is your mention of edit counts, that's not what I said, and that's not my style (I would never ever start by telling someone that they "need to learn" unless they did so themselves, like you did), I was merely taking note of my recent contribution to this article as opposed to just dismissing it as you did, with no evidence. Since I do not want to offend, I'm striking my comment (which is deifnitely not an attack but just not nice). As I said, I always focus on the content. Anyhow, let's stop it here, I'm busy. If you have evidence for your claim that the sources are paid publicity, please post them, otherwise your claims should rightly be regarded as false. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I'm an Indian, she is really famous I know! There are some WP:IDONTLIKE here. She meets WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. VocalIndia (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@VocalIndia: I agree with you, and since you are pretty firm about your opinion, I would recommend that you register a formal vote. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I aleady vote above. VocalIndia (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (2) - more updates added with reliable sources - it appears that everything this lady does gets significant media attention, with no mention of her background as suggested by the nominator. Overall expansion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly worthy of coverage and adequately sourced, and from a prominent Indian family.† Encyclopædius 14:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, has significant independent coverage from a variety of sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has a bestselling book with plenty of reviews and coverage and has at least one in-depth article in almost every major Indian publication that I can think of. She might not be outstanding in any particular field but clearly the overall coverage is enough to justify an article. This isn't a NOTINHERITED case because she has enough coverage in her own right Spiderone 23:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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