< December 01	December 03 >

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sizzle Beach, U.S.A.[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 6 citations listed here [[1]]. Plus, film debut of Kevin Costner, that's a seems to make it pass WP:NFO, "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Donaldd23 (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 reviews ~~New York Times~~ New York Daily News and TV Guide have been added to the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's the New York Daily News, actually, but yes, there are now two reliable sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This raises a fair question: do tabloid sources, like the New York Daily News, count as reliable sources? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Perennial sources list says "Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines." — Toughpigs (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katia Zygouli[edit]

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

BLP without real references Rathfelder (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the references here add up to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:BASIC; seems to be only notable through association with Sakis Rouvas. As an WP:ATD, this could be redirected to Rouvas' personal life section where she is mentioned enough. Spiderone 21:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:03, 8 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equalizer 2000[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 28 citations listed at [[2]]. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist. I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:37, 5 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 nomination withdrawn. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Rebel Breed[edit]

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

Despite having an article about it in The A.V. Club, it has no other significant coverage. Does not meet WP:NFILM. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New York Times [[3]] Donaldd23 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per Donaldd23's discovery of New York Times review Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:49, 3 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Comeback Trail[edit]

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

Despite having a review from The New York Times, it has no other significant coverage. Needs two or more reviews to pass WP:NFO. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found this [[4]] Donaldd23 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:36, 5 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Godfather[edit]

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

Despite having a review from The New York Times, it has no other significant coverage. Needs two or more reviews to pass WP:NFO. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely one of these 16 reviews should make it notable. [[5]] Donaldd23 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the New York Times review, the movie is discussed in two published books: Blacks in American Film and Television by Donald Bogle (Simon & Schuster, 1989) and Blaxploitation Cinema: The Essential Reference Guide by Josiah Howard (FAB Press, 2008). — Toughpigs (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw nomination per the two book sources above. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by OP. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 05:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Project Kill[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 6 listed citations available here [[6]], did any of them get looked at for possible notability support? Donaldd23 (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looking through what's available online makes me believe that there must be 1970s newspaper sources (at least from Kentucky) to verify the contents against RS. Indeed the film may be a bit obscure but as there are no good redirect targets, I would favour a standalone article. I don't see how we could not cover a major film that had Leslie Nielsen and Nancy Kwan in it. —Kusma (t·c) 18:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If an administrator is willing to vote Keep for this, then I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hitcher vs. Candyman, that I am an admin does not make my opinion more important here, so please don't read too much into that. I totally agree that the article needs better sources (and I think a couple of days in a good library would provide those), but I don't think deleting this article helps. —Kusma (t·c) 10:49, 6 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Find the Lady (1976 film)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is one review in the article + [[7]] + [[8]] Donaldd23 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time, the problem here isn't that reliable sources about the film don't exist — it's that the article was created at a time when Wikipedia didn't have a hard rule about actually citing sources in the article yet, and simply didn't get improved as the rule tightened up. But notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not necessarily the current state of the article — if a WP:BEFORE search finds enough sources to get the topic over WP:GNG, then the topic still passes GNG even if none of them are actually in the article yet. And, once again, this gets more than enough hits on newspapers.com to salvage it. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve convinced me to withdraw this nomination, Bearcat. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:18, 3 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The spinoff film Find the Lady has reviews. Sequels/spinoffs don't usually happen unless the original film was notable enough. Finding reviews online today for a limited release Canadian film released in 1975 is difficult, but the fact it had a spinoff film. Seems a shame that a John Candy film is being questioned. (I know notability is not inherited, but it's John Freaking Candy.) Donaldd23 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only actual problem here is that this article was created in 2006, a time when we did not have the same rules about citing sources directly in the article that we do today — at the time, as long as it was verifiable that the topic wasn't an outright hoax, you were allowed to start an article with no footnotes in it and it was simply presumed that footnotes would eventually get added. Yes, that was incredibly stupid of us, and left us cleaning up a lot of garbage, which is precisely why the rules have been tightened up in the intervening 15 years — but that also means you can't just delete a 15 year old article for lacking sources, without first checking whether sources are available to salvage it with or not. Which they are here: I've already added three solid sources to start from a Gerald Pratley book and a ProQuest search, and there are 46 more hits to sort through in a newspapers.com search (which I'll need some help retrieving, as search is free on there but retrieval isn't, so adding some or all of them will take a bit more time.) That's plenty enough for a WP:GNG pass: notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not necessarily the current state of the article. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds convincing enough Bearcat. I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:15, 3 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. Going with keep here. Feel free to discuss mergers, if any, on the appropriate talk page. Thanks everyone! Missvain (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie (Street Fighter)[edit]

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

Like the previous noms, reception is lackluster and consists entirely of listicles in what little is there. Fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The reception section is pretty much just a paragraph version of 'he was n-th on list y, and m-th on list z', which a recent RSN discussion are not reliable and not sufficient for establishing notability. That said, it may be best to merge the reception section to the list of Street Fighter characters, it has some value, unlike the unreferenced plot-summary fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, or in the alternative if the consensus is that the subject does not meet GNG, merge. I believe this character has received some coverage which have not been used in the article, but he is probably a borderline case. Also, a tentative agreement between a handful of editors on a viewpoint is not a precedent-establishing consensus, and not all of the listicles cited actually provide passing mentions only. Anyway, a few unused sources for everyone's consideration:

Haleth (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Den of Geek one is not bad, but the others are trivial. If there were several like the Den of Geek one I would withdraw my nomination but it still doesn't appear to be independently notable just based on that (and that ref can easily be incorporated into the overall character list)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few more that I've found. Haleth (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - Hardcore Gamer
  - VentureBeat
  - Forbes
  - Movieweb
  - Weplay

Hmmm, not bad. Most of those are borderline/unreliable, but denofgeek, plus [9] (although it is half-WP:INTERVIEW), are good. This is also interesting, but seems more like a blog? Still, this is getting salvageable. Can we find anything more reliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Websites like Kotaku (and its sister sites), Polygon and Destructoid are all essentially in blog format. Even longtime media outlets like IGN publishes posts that comes across like blogged content at times. The relevant consensus is not so much whether it is a blog and if so perceived as lower quality, but rather whether the blog site has any kind of editorial oversight, besides putting out quality content. Haven't seen anything about this weplay.tv site which leaves me concerned me about lack of editorial oversight or professionalism. One thing about the character though, he has a long history of being referred to as just Nash in Japan and other territories (which is how I found even more sources), besides his first name Charlie in the West. Whether he gets an entry in the list or the standalone article stays, it should be his full name.

A few more for your consideration as well. Haleth (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - CBM (another interview)
    - Destructoid (Official statue merchandise for Nash and Guile)
    - Technobuffalo (critique of his appearance)
    - Prima Games (half of it is game guide, but first 2 paragraphs nicely summarizes his visual and gameplay redesign)
    - Detik (in Indonesian, another critique of his appearance and moves upon the reveal)
    - Redbull (about notable pro player who sticks with the character and provides insight into the character's metagame as of 2017)
    - 4Gamer (Interview with the developers in Japanese, some developmental info)

Redirect - Topic does not establish notability, but it seems something can maybe be salvaged for the character list. TTN (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have listed an extensive amount of sources which build towards demonstrating the character's notability, but you have not commented on why the sources are unsuitable or do not provide significant coverage. To closing admin, given that the nominator and another editor have indicated that they are open to considering these sources, may I suggest that this discussion be relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Haleth (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eurogamer Evo 2016 coverage (3 Charlie Nash tournament players ranking in the top 5 and one of them was the winner)
  - Eurogamer SFV review (Non-trivial analysis of the character's gameplay, in comparison to trivial mentions for most other characters)
  - Comicbook.com (Interview with Joey Ansah the director of Resurrection)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 November 16 after a contested "merge" closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources listed here could prove useful in improving this character's article... Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There is not enough coverage in the above sources to do justice to the topic without delving into primary sources and original research. Expand summary style within the parent article. This should be the default for these characters—their coverage is very often among all other series characters, not profiles into out-of-universe impact of Charlie Nash. Don't think this needed to go to deletion review and don't think this needed to be relisted. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 06:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Den of Geek looks very good. Polygon is reliable, though not much depth. primagames.com has 2 paragraphs of coverage of the character as a concept and quite a bit more as a playable character. Not sure is considered reliable, but I can't see why it wouldn't be reliable in this context. The Weplay one I'm unclear on (feels like a blog post, but might not be). So one good source (in-depth, reliable, independent), one reliable source with only a couple of paragraphs, and one good one I think is reliable plus a ton of other stuff. Hobit (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Den of Geek is the best we have, it shows that the character is only noteworthy in-universe. I think it's a stretch to call that Polygon release an article. I haven't seen coverage that describes his importance outside the general list/cast of series characters. czar 20:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Otherwise, merge. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 12:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a well-researched article, and with the additional sources found that are listed above, I think it adds value to the encyclopedia. It also appears to be a puzzle piece to a larger set.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already a good length, there in enough coverage, could add a few more sources, but definitely notable. Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of lakes of Alaska. Missvain (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dull Ax Lake[edit]

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

There are nearly 3,200 named lakes in Alaska, about 0.1% of all lakes statewide. So, lots and lots of lakes that aren't really notable, and I don't see anything about this one that makes it notable. The article basically says "it exists, some guy named it, it's near this other stuff with no article." Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Per WP:GEOLAND and "dull+ax+lake"&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlh7HApLDtAhUNXsAKHcPDD8MQ6AEwAXoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q="dull%20ax%20lake"&f=false - since Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer, and we can say just a little bit more than just statistics that's not sourced to the GNIS, I'd support a keep here - though I also note if notability is on a scale of -100 to 100, where negative numbers are non-notable, I consider this around a 0.5. SportingFlyer T·C 21:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is perfect per Reywas, below. SportingFlyer T·C 23:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of lakes of Alaska which lists the same basic data and links GNIS with name origin. This is a pretty darn small, generic, and remote lake, not too far from scores and scores of similar sized or larger bodies of water. Reywas92^Talk 23:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slight issue with that idea: If you look at the talk page of that list, you will see a discussion of weather that list should include lakes with no article at all, as, again, there are over 3,000 named lakes out of the 3,000,000 total lakes in Alaska. If we list all the named lakes that list would get quite ridiculous, yet that is what one user is attempting, a 3000-item list. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LISTN, that's not a problem. This shouldn't be removed completely. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but further down that same page WP:CSC states "if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list" so it's not as cut-and-dried as all that. I've just opened an RFC over there to discuss this matter further. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of lakes of Alaska per Reywas and SportingFlyer. That's a good list, regardless of what CSC says.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:19, 8 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 procedural close as wrong venue, as page is a redirect which would ordinarily be covered at WP:RFD. Further, said redirect was never tagged to indicate that this dicussion was even taking place. I will boldly change the redirect to point to the nominator's article Thomas and Friends Blue Mountain Mystery--this can easily be changed back to its original target if that article is draftified or deleted. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 00:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends: Blue Mountain Mystery[edit]

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

Reason RanDom 404 (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this but this redirect (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_%26_Friends:_Blue_Mountain_Mystery&redirect=no) is messing up a page I just created. Since it currently redirects to Thomas & Friends (franchise), it's messing up the article from being seen. Please delete the redirect page I requested.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This would normally be taken care of through speedy deletion, type WP:G6. The article you've written, Thomas and Friends Blue Mountain Mystery, seems a bit under sourced to me though, and should probably be draftified. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 21:22, 2 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. Feel free to discuss renaming the article on the talk page. I think that's a good idea. Missvain (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bands and musicians from Yorkshire and North East England[edit]

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

This will no doubt be a controversial nomination. Fails WP:LISTN and does not meet any purpose of a list under WP:LISTPURP. Also goes against key principles of WP:IINFO (WP:RAWDATA). Also, inclusion criteria are unclear. Ed Sheeran might well be born in Halifax but I doubt anyone would consider him to be from Yorkshire given that he grew up in the south.

WP:LISTN - there is a lack of evidence to suggest that this topic is discussed at length in reliable sources; I'm not seeing any particular reason why bands, musicians and festivals from this particular region should be given a special level of significance
WP:LISTPURP - this list does not contain any valuable information, it does not aid in navigation and it serves no developmental purpose
WP:IINFO - merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Spiderone 20:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The broader and possibly vague scope of this list may be a problem (really because of the inclusion of "North East England", not because of what it means to be "from", which is dealt with regularly in lists as well as categories), but this would seem to most closely parallel Category:Musicians from Yorkshire. Narrowing its focus to a clearly definable geographic locale like that would make it a valid complement to that category per WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repurpose to Bands and Musicians from Yorkshire which is a valid specific topic for a list in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's kept wouldn't it be better to rename the article Music in Yorkshire or something similar? The article also lists venues, festivals and albums associated with the county. Spiderone 10:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's really an overlapping but separate thing. "Fooers from place X" in lists and categories never is almost never limited to those that Foo'd in that place, it's really more about subdividing by occupation the grouping of everyone notable from that place. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be exactly what I would look for in a list. Great wikilinking to other articles I may be interested in, and as a list, I would expect to find the supporting sources in maybe just some select places - which is the case here. Notability certainly isn't a factor for me on a list of this nature and size.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion, although a re-naming is not out of order. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 8 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. The football fans here know their stuff. Going with delete. Missvain (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Mawla[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass NFOOTBALL from playing or coaching career and looks to fail GNG Spiderone 12:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have some large-scale work on the Iraqi sports club Al-Mina'a SC on our encyclopedia. As part of painting the larger picture around that club and its sports, there are numerous articles on current and former managers of the football side. This is one of those articles, and I am a big proponent of seeing certain articles as a small piece of a larger whole, which applies here. Deleting this article would destroy a small puzzle piece, but would leave a recognizable hole.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)--Concertmusic (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Missvain (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Johnson (sports administrator)[edit]

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

Football executive who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Majority of media mentions of him are trivial or passing at best. The article is basically a resume. BlameRuiner (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see nothing special here for the article to be kept. It reads like a CV and not like a bio. Govvy (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's decent coverage out there, including this, and plenty of coverage about his appointment from across the globe that goes beyond NOTNEWS. It needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 22:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The head of the governing body of a sport in a major country is generally notable. Plenty of sourcing. It's a normal biography, not a "resume". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of reliable sources out there establishing his notability, and as Necrothesp says, the head of a governing body of sport in a country is usually notable. This does not fall into the category of advertisement or resume. Should not have been brought to AfD (and WP:NOTCLEANUP should be compulsory reading). Deus et lex (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It was actually originally prodded! Another example, I'm afraid, of how prodding is being misused on articles that are clearly not uncontroversial deletions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close: I am surprised to find how people are editing the pages from a long time and clear example of editors misusing editing powers. This executive is blindly notable however deleting editor cannot find it, he first prodded it, then he again raised AFD. I will suggest him to first Google about pages and then raise AFD after detailed search, it will help a lot. He seems to be active and really his previous prodded pages needs to be re-evaluated. 2001:8003:4030:7E00:E835:4BBC:551B:EA63 (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this passes WP:BASIC even just from the sources in the article Spiderone 19:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG as per current sourcing, and a cursory WP:BEFORE.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:29, 4 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. Going with delete for now. Can always be re-established if the sources magically appear! Missvain (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basim Jamal Mahmoud Al-Salihi[edit]

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

Footballer and military person who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL - claims he played for Iraq national team unverified. Giant Snowman 21:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all notability claims unverified by RS. Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If he was indeed secretary of the Iraqi Football Association, played for the Iraqi national team and served as a general then he obviously passes notability requirements on all three counts. However, there doesn't yet seem to be any documentary evidence of any of these things. As far as I can see (using translate, as I don't know Arabic), the only source confirms none of them. Unless anyone can find any further sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman, yes fails GNG. BlueD954 (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darius G. Pridgen[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, city council is not a level of office that confers an automatic notability freebie just because the person exists -- to get a Wikipedia article for serving at this level of office, a person must either (a) serve on the city council of an externally recognized global city on the order of New York City, Los Angeles, Toronto or London, or (b) be referenceable to a depth and range and volume of media coverage that marks them out as a special case of much more nationalized significance than most other city councillors. (And no, being president of the council still isn't a notability freebie; even with that title, he still has to pass the same global city and/or nationalized sourceability tests as any other city councillor.) Neither of those conditions are demonstrated here, however: the city does not have global city status, and the article cites just three footnotes of which one is a Q&A interview in a local interest magazine in which he's talking about himself in the first person (thus fine for verification of facts but not a builder of notability), one is his "staff" profile on the city council's self-published website about itself (a primary source that is not a builder of notability), and one is just a piece of routine local news reportage about his battle with Miss Corona. So there's only one source here that's reliable or GNG-worthy, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the depth of coverage in WP:RS needed to meet WP:BIO Valenciano (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being on a city council is not a default sign of notability and we do not have sufficient sourcing to show notability. I have come to realize even in denominations where bishops supervise large numbers of congregations default notablity is not there for bishops. In this case, Pridgen looks to be a Pentecostal bishop, and in Pentecostalism it is unclear what makes someone a bishop. Many Pentecostal bishops are over one congregation, and while they are often big congregations, not every head of a congrgregation of 5000 is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The city council president in New York's 62 cities has a bully pulpit and some procedural powers, but no substantive powers beyond that of any other alderman or member of a city council. Absent significant coverage, this person is not notable. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn, migrated to MfD. XOR'easter (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Draft:David Hecht[edit]

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

Reason

While the article is in draft format, it neither includes anything of significance and doesn't meet notability. The BoardgameGeek link as a a reference doesn't even include any content. I further googled to look for sources and found nothing meaningful. The games with which he created are mentioned under a subset of a wider category 18XX and are neither common from distribution or in terms of game design. Gort2020 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, because it is still in draft space I can't add the tag to the article perhaps only option was CSD:A7 not sure how to reconcile this... Gort2020 (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. Should go to WP:MFD. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have moved it to MFD following on from when I did a preview edit but not sure how to close this page. Gort2020 (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Martins Ferreira[edit]

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

Despite my efforts to find their work in notable collections, studies of their work, or significant press coverage, this artist appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Missvain (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's also up for deletion at pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Fernando Martins Ferreira. Não tem nenhum !voto naquela página pelo momento, but I'd be interested to see what happens there. Presumably the results should be equivalent. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any significant coverage in a search. The provided references are very weak.Possibly (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS to establish N. Theredproject (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reviewed this article for WP:NPP. I, too, tried to research the artist before templating it as having notability problems. The subject appears to exist and to be a bona fide artist, but that's about all I could determine in either English or Portuguese sources. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aqeel Hato[edit]

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

Football player and coach who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played for or managed a senior national team or in fully professional league, meaning the articles fails WP:NFOOTBALL. There's no indication of sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently does not meet GNG or NFOOTBALL Spiderone 15:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same comment as for Hassan Mawla. We have some large-scale work on the Iraqi sports club Al-Mina'a SC on our encyclopedia. As part of painting the larger picture around that club and its sports, there are numerous articles on current and former managers of the football side. This is one of those articles, and I am a big proponent of seeing certain articles as a small piece of a larger whole, which applies here. Deleting this article would destroy a small puzzle piece, but would leave a recognizable hole.

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Dougherty (police officer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Similarly to Mona Rae Miracle, also at AfD, the only remote claim to notability other than WP:NOTINHERITED is that he had some part to play in the development of SWAT tactics: the sources for this are passing mentions in two obituaries and not particularly conclusive, one describing him as "training" the first SWAT team and the other that he "invented the SWAT team" without giving any real detail. It could be that he is notable for this reason but the article as it stands does not bear that out. The article was previously deleted via AfD in 2015. ninety:one 17:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I strongly believe that Mr. Dougherty deserves his own article, because he was so heavily involved in the making of a star, the beginning of Marilyn Monroe‘s career. His conflict of interest with Monroe led to their divorce, led to her signing the contract and becoming a star. This is maybe not specified enough in the article that has been created, so it should only be worked on I feel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebiggangwiki (talk • contribs) 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- (User !voted twice) Keep: The subject has written several notable works and has a documentary about him. Along with the other reasons mentioned, I feel it should not be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebiggangwiki (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obituaries in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and Associated Press (picked up by the New York Times) satisfy WP:BASIC. Not the greatest of accomplishments, but I've seen worse. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced and an interesting topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that the obituaries indicate notability here. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No question about notability, good sources, no issues in my mind.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage. Even if he had not been Marilyn Monroe's first husband (which I do not concede is precluded by WP:NOTINHERITED), as the first SWAT trainer, he's notable Bearian (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Vramencalieva[edit]

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

Nothing much found doing BEFORE and the available references fail WP:SIGCOV. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 14:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 14:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 14:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Meets GNG. 5 minutes of WP:BEFORE yields 1 2 3 — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First source is copy pasted from the third source, and the second source isn't either significant. We need to have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources for a subject to meet GNG which sadly the three mentioned sources don't have. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 15:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (^talk) 21:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with maintenance tags for improvement. Mr-5 / ^{M ✉ / C🖋} 16:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would've agreed for maintenance tags if at least a borderline notability was justified. But sources don't exist. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 05:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 04:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see her listed as being ranked in the IAAF or whatever international federation table top tennis uses. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's no consensus so far. Perhaps this relist would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no significant coverage in reliable sources, and fails the relevant SNG criteria. — Hammad (Talk!) 15:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources fail to establish notability Spiderone 13:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Editors have expressed this meets GNG. (non-admin closure) SK2242 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Meth[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG after searching for sources. SK2242 (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 7 8 (in case it's unclear, the last few links are examples of citations of work), And again, the subject's life is a case study in an Open University course. A more thorough WP:BEFORE would have helped.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local news good for GNG? Some of the sources listed aren’t very significant coverage. SK2242 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. I'm baffled by this AfD—anyone even considering this as potentially non-notable surely would have pulled up at "Industrial editor for the Daily Mail". ‑ Iridescent 12:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to meet WP:GNG. Noahfgodard (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tele Cine Awards[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage of this subject or "Tele Cine Society" found on Google News or Google Books. Entity claims to have started in 2000, but they only had a website from 2013 to 2015 (See Wayback Machine at https://web.archive.org/web/20130817000608/http://telecine.co.in/) and the only content found in the article are slivers from 2011 to 2013. Their Twitter account @TeleCineAward appears to be defunct.

Further, the article creator made a few edits in this subject area to various articles the year before they created the article.[10][11][12] That kind of suggests to me a COI, which is enhanced by the spate of edits in 2015 from Vivaan Viswanath, who was a sock of Vamsiraj, someone who was likely involved in a paid editing ring. So very little about this article or entity strikes me as legit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable Award failing WP:GNG.Faizal batliwala (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are important for TV industries. Keeping them would be no harm. Yadav0281 (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Above account was less than an hour old when they !voted. Obviously unfamiliar with AfD procedure, since "no harm" is not a valid reason to keep articles that contravene our notability guidelines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ; zero evidence of notability here Spiderone 13:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treves, California[edit]

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

Topos suggests Treves was simply a railroad station (isolated point on the tracks with basically no development), as does this. Might bundle a few more railroad features in the area into this nomination. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was a siding, see this.

The siding at the Tehachapi Loop, see this.

A station, see this.

While I normally don't like bundled nominations, given that a single user created hundreds and possibly well over a thousand similarly problematic geography stubs just in the state of California, for efficiency's sake, this is needed. These all fail WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Lacks significant coverage of places. Reywas92^Talk 19:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all fail WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND and any other applicable guideline. How many more of these articles are there!? California has 88 articles up for deletion, almost all of which are these perma stubs that fail GEOLAND. Spiderone 09:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Spiderone - In all honestly, probably hundreds. I've started prodding the worst ones to not overload AFD. See the December portion of my prod log for how many I've prodded in CA, in addition to the AFDs. Also see the constant wall of deletion notices at User talk:Carlossuarez46, dating back to last March. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Words fail me. What's even more shocking is that most of these articles have stood here for over 11 years. Every single one would get declined at WP:AfC Spiderone 17:28, 7 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing Dreams (film)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFO; needs two or more sources to be eligible. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has 2 sources Both sources say the film is only notable because of it being Kevin Costner's first role. But therefore it is. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and there were no delete votes. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a Prophet[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES; none of the sources show significant coverage of this film. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ALthough the article in its current form is definitely lacking in citations, the movie clearly meets the notability requirements, being cited in article's beyond it's release [[13]], [[14]], along with a showing at the Black film Festival in 1991.^[1] — Unsigned post by Lukestepford

^ "Harlem film fest features "other" Malcolm X Film". New York Amsterdam News (1962-1993). September 7, 1991. Retrieved 2 December 2020.

Keep: I found two reviews of the film: a contemporary review from The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and a review in Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide: The Modern Era. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination; Article now has two reviews from Leonard Maltin and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette respectively. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rupali Suri[edit]

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

testing positive for COVID is not notable, in fact, not getting covid would probably be more miraculous. There isn't any meaningful coverage of her career nor did she actually place in any of the pageants she participated in. Praxidicae (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator's argument. Dwain09877 (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. h 02:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, Elgin[edit]

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

Run of the mill congregation. Many churches are notable because they're listed on the NRHP. This one is not and, apart from a single 100th anniversary article in a local newspaper, there is no other WP:SIGCOV. schetm (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local congregation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Like most local churches, this one looks NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and only one source provided. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The building is more than 100 years old (pre-1921); it is a part of a historic district on the NARA website; and it is notable for its church its music program. It just barely meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:SIRS. Only two independent citations where one mentions the congregation's 100th anniversary and the other a passing mention for its taking part in a Christian unity program. If the church is part of a historic district it can be merged. I don't see this having the criteria for a stand alone article. Blue Riband► 00:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Raghav[edit]

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

Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable 16 year old taekwondo student. Meets none of the notability criteria for athletes at WP:NSPORT or the criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE and lacks the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it takes a lot to show someone under 18 is notable, and we do not have that hear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ilham Nagiyev[edit]

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

Seeking consensus on whether this BLP meets notability requirements. It was previously deleted and recreated. It has sources and plenty of links, but to me it just doesn’t add up to much and I don’t think there enough here that’s solid and substantive enough to indicate that the subject is notable. Mccapra (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability that I can currently see. Giant Snowman 14:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability Kolma8 (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BASIC. Alternatively, redirect to Baku United FC as a last resort Spiderone 20:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Sorry I didn't notice this speedy sooner. Y'all can always ping me on my talk page regarding speedy d's. Missvain (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ROLZE[edit]

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

Borderline A7 eligible article for a non notable rapper who a before search shows lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Furthermore subject doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete a 12-year old with just a insta ref for a future first release - should have just been speedied. KylieTastic (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic, Good point! But from my experience, I figured the article creator would be the type to create and re-create the article no matter what, hence I thought it wise to follow the AFD process so in future a G4 would come in handy. Celestina007 (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7 and G11. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per everyone above. No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A7, maybe even G11. There are 0 sources about the subject. I checked his Instagram page to see if he was famous or something, but even I have more followers. There might be a COI going on here. No proof of passing WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ARTIST. The article has been rejected in Articles for Creation here, but still created, suggesting that the article could've been recreated after a speedy deletion, so an AfD seems like the right choice. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 17:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things in this article are also on draftspace: Draft:PABLO and Draft:Deadeyes. These are clearly also not notable. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 18:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7 and possibly G11 (as per above). Pahunkat (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please close this AfD? I don’t mean to be impatient, but I think we have far more than enough reasons and consensus for a Speedy Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Ben[edit]

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

No major works. Passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable at the moment. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no major works and no WP:SIGCOV Spiderone 13:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorsports people by nickname[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This long, painful to read directory still contains the same issues that led to it's being nominated two times in the past. "It is just a laundry list of nicknames, many of which are either unsourced, or of drivers who aren't notable in the slightest." is a direct quote from the 1st nom, and is still a valid reason that has not been addressed. Furthermore, drivers which are notable enough to have their own articles, contain their nicknames in the opening sentence of their BLPs, in accordance with MOS:NAME. Nicknames alone should not be allowed to pass WP:LISTN. Also, the main person arguing to keep the list time has since been banned for sockpuppetry. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory and I see no evidence that it passes WP:LISTN.
SSSB (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Still do not see how this satisfies WP:LISTN. Cannot see anything near WP:SIGCOV of this. No idea why so many people defended this during the previous AFD. Just no encyclopedic value.T v x1 13:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. A7V2 (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an unencyclopaedic list that fails WP:LISTN. Also see WP:IINFO Spiderone 11:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Kalaf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Survived first AFD as he played in international club tournament, which isn't enough to meet NFOOTY as his club was not from FPL --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the understanding of NFOOTBALL at the last AFD in 2009 (including from me) was not correct. Giant Snowman 14:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; perhaps warrants one sentence in the article of his brother Amjad Kalaf but nothing more Spiderone 15:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search on google gave no results which means that this fails WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Karzan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Miraculously survived AFD the first time because he apparently played in AFC Cup (not sure, the link provided as a source is dead and not archived). BlameRuiner (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the original AFD close was bad, and there is no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless I'm missing something, this fails WP:NFOOTBALL anyway as he hasn't played in a game between two clubs in a WP:FPL. I'm not sure if the rule was different back then. More importantly, this completely fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 13:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Fagan[edit]

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

I checked the references for this article, and they do not seem to qualify her for notability. She legitimately is a member of the faculty at Ohio State U., but does not hold a named chair and so does not qualify under WP:ACADEMIC. Ref #2 is a directory listing, ref #3 is from one of her book publishers (AGNI) and lacks independence, and ref #4 is a link to an Emerson College page that does not mention her. A Google News search turns up only 13 hits, most of which were created or influenced by her directly or were created by her publishers or Ohio State. There's a page on the LA Review that shows two of her poems, but says nothing about her. One result shows one of her works was "a finalist for the 2018 Kingsley Tufts and William Carlos Williams Poetry Prizes", but neither this nor any of the other awards she has won or almost won appears to be notable. Receiving a non-notable fellowship, as far as I know, does not qualify a person as notable, and none of her awards includes any reliable independent verification (though they may all certainly be WP:TRUE). Having published works does not make an author notable, and I was not able to find evidence of independent reliable published sources to qualify her as notable in her own right. I can find no subject-specific guidelines under which she qualifies, and she does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NAUTHOR looks plausible. Reviews include [15][16][17], also a review in brief [18] and one in a source whose reliability I wasn't immediately able to determine [19]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the reviews and awards are enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, re the nomination statement's Kingsley Tufts and William Carlos Williams Poetry Prizes", but neither this nor any of the other awards she has won or almost won appears to be notable: see The Kingsley and Kate Tufts Poetry Awards and William Carlos Williams Award, both of which have had articles here for years. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After improvement, the case for meeting WP:AUTHOR is decently clear. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews would be the weak side for a keep for a usual author, but for a poet this is a high level. Something that helps to convince me is the fact that her poems have been put into anthologies fairly widely, which I take to be comparable to being exhibited in a gallery per WP:NCREATIVE. (Should anthologies be specifically added to the NCREATIVE standard? Or perhaps I am completely off base in holding anthologies as roughly equivalent.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY passes WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, great work by David Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Bailey[edit]

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

Non-notable due to insufficient WP:SIGCOV in RS. Other sources are either not verifiable, or not independent (self-written). May be created and largely written by user with WP:COI, potentially WP:Autobiography. Overall seems to fail WP:BASIC criteria for BLP. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be notable adding citation that is missing.is easy to do as there are a wealth of articles regarding this indvidiual the user requesting deletion seems to of created the crypto art page and may have a personal reason for deletion of this page.

While one of the references is self written this just seems to be in reference to who he is married too. The rest are the times. Daily mail etc and clearly not self written. The user attempting deletion also deleted this article from the cryptoart page https://fadmagazine.com/2018/12/14/sascha-bailey-aims-to-modernise-the-art-industry-with-new-blockchain-play/

Showing a clear want to remove this individual from Wikipedia for personal reasons.

Futher argument for Keeping is aside from the citations here s quick Google Search of this individual throws up 100s of results about art exhibitions modeling etc. As well as well over 800 photos on getty images. Deletion of acting section makes sense. However, given the sheer volume of google results this person has deletion of the whole page seems like over kill.

More references to art curation can be found with ease i.e https://www.wonderlandmagazine.com/2016/10/04/maverick-expo-fenton-sascha-bailey/

Proof of this individuals work in blockchain or crypto art is also available in many diffrent publications https://www.artmarket .guru/le-journal/interviews/blockchain-art-exchange/ (url broken up due to Wikipedia not alowing this site. However it is not of note to be added He is also featured as an expert on Crypto art in this business insider magazine article

https://www.businessinsider.com/64-billion-art-bitcoin-blockchain-picasso-lincoln-townley-2020-7

Futher and although this video cannot be used as citation due to it being hosted on a comoany youtube channel. It was originally posted to London live and Is useful in this discussion https://youtu. be/ojHS7NXE0_8 (url added space to wiki rules)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.225.156 (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.225.156 (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @User:49.98.225.156, do not edit other user's comments here, especially not the AfD creation comment and top section information. If you would like to refute arguments do so by creating a new bullet point at the very bottom of this discussion or a sub-bullet point under the comment you would like to reply to. I've moved your additions down below the top section information. I did not create the Crypto art article, I have contributed to the introductory portions. I've not removed any links from that article at all, I don't think I've ever seen that Fadmagazine link referenced on that article honestly. Unsubstantiated claims of malice against other editors are likely only to weaken your arguments in these forums. In terms of WP:Notability, the bar for verifiable WP:Reliable Sources is especially high for a biographical article on a currently living person (see WP:BIO). Notability stems from non-trivial mentions of the subject in mainstream, reputable sources and by professional journalists or writers with editorial oversight. Here is a quote directly from WP:INVALIDBIO:
"Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online."
Business Insider is considered a questionable source so it may (or may not) contribute towards notability. The other sources are smaller publications and don't have a ton of reputation to provide WP:Verifiability, at least from what I can tell, you even acknowledged that one of the links you gave was not allowed by Wikipedia. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 11:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For more general information on how the deletion and discussion process works, see Help:AFD. Let's wait for others to give their thoughts on the matter. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 11:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Feels a ton like a UPE creation, creating editor Quiteuselessart ceased to exist onsite after creating this article, and had no prior editing history. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 11:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment other than the uk and usa press that is provided times daily mail etc more press canbe found in the japanese media for example http://www.tokyoartbeat.com/event/2017/B894.en More in regards to this canbe gound by googling baileys icons tokyo. This page has existed For several years and has had many deletions attempts. Which have all been pushed down. Citation to the times was added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.225.156 (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Daily mail is a deprecated source. To add a new bullet point, precede your comment with the * symbol. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 12:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment further citation to frist exibition held can be found here https://www.tatler.com/gallery/fenton-and-sascha-baileys-human-relations-private-view-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.225.156 (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment for easier reference the citations added at 6 is this link https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-kids-are-all-right-zzc0mqjjsxn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.225.156 (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep op here. This page was created during an exhibition sascha bailey had in 2016 in tokyo. Since then it has been maintained and added too over time. There are plenty of references from the daily mail Times and othe. the self written reference was not included in this article at the onset. After creation this post was attempted to be deleted so it was changed to be more neutral. While it has only postive press here is an example of some negative hope this helps balance the page https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2496672/MOS-Diary-David-Baileys-boy-swaps-Lucian-Freud-trip-Hong-Kong-launch-modelling-career.htmldelling-career.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiteuselessart (talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment so far in this discussion links to tatler, daily mail twice (one very negative) given one is deprecated but im sure you could find it on the wayback machine. The Times twice. Business insider. Wall steet international. London live again deprecated unfortunately but the evidence exists. As well as multiple small press outlets. That would give at least 5 extra citations. The japanese news is hard to find but it can be. This page can clearly be amended to be more neutral and the acting credit removed. But based on these major outlets. I put the case forward that deletion is unnecessary. Given all the links and citations provided, this person is of note and continues to be of note in the blockchain community. The links and citations for this i have provided above. Futher, it is clear that the yser asking for deletion has no Real knowledge of the crypto art space and edits that page sectively due to his own acknowledgment that he had not even seen the article from the upcoming in 2018 citing Sascha bbailey as one of the frist ppeople to create a crypto art eexchange. Finally he also seeks to delete the meta mask page this displays an unbelievable lack of knowledge about crypto etheruem or crypto art given that it is tthe most used plugin for this sector. All his edits on any crypto related suject should in this case be treated as highly suspicious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.225.156 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the MetaMask page, I do not seek to delete it. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 17:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per moonythedwarf, furthermore, the sourcing doesn’t portray the subject of our discussion as being notable. Celestina007 (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:TOOSOON. Attorneys and art curators just get started at 26 years of age. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wazuh[edit]

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

Unreferenced promo piece about non-notable IT security fork. Search found nothing more than passing mentions and the usual discussion forums, download hubs, etc. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP / WP:PRODUCT. Earlier PROD was removed without explanation, hence this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources I've found have been trivial mentions, mostly in relation to more notable project it forked from. Also noting here that I was the editor that placed the PROD tag. - MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the system. Article is definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 6 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Bingham[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is all inherited from her company Grove Atlantic. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been included in the WiR Project: Women who died in 2020 Meetup. StrayBolt (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obits in NYT, WSJ, Publishers Weekly, and the Louisville Courier-Journal. That's enough for WP:BASIC IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AleatoryPonderings above - notability seems covered, and sources are reliable.--Concertmusic (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levee Spur, California[edit]

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

Was gonna PROD this one, but decided this might be a decent discussion to keep around for posterity to show one of the worse examples of what happens when you mass-create geographic place stubs without actually looking into the sites. GNIS actually gets this one correct by calling it a Locale (geography). This is a literal railroad spur going to a levee. There is nothing notable about this place whatsoever. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Shear negligence, and the person who foisted this false crap on the project of course has nothing to say about the mess he's making others clean up. Topo for reference. Reywas92^Talk 09:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this was evidently never a settlement or community as per Hog Farm's research Spiderone 22:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Childers Road Retail Park[edit]

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

WP:MILL small 20-store strip center. Unreferenced since 2009, with nothing indicating any notability. Certainly does not have the community significance of a large mall. Does not meet WP:GNG MB 03:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. MB 03:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MB 03:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to think this is notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching for any kind of sources shows that it exists, but no kind of coverage that would indicate passing the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That does not even appear to be the current correct name, which per this website is called "Limerick One" but went on sale in 2016 per this Irish Times report and was sold that year per the Limerick Leader. Still I don't see any real coverage to warrant an article. ww2censor (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.27.67 (talk • contribs)

Delete - a run of the mill shopping centre. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 8 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. Stepping into the lion's den here...

If anyone wants this list userfied for the sake of lists of lists or something let me know. Missvain (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who are left-handed[edit]

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

Essentially an article that has a prior history of being deleted as unmaintainable listcruft, based on a largely non-defining characteristic shared by 10% of everyone. Just with another slightly different name. Past experience of this article shows it usually becomes a snowballing pile of unsourced, or poorly sourced, names of no practical or verifiable use to anyone. This article was created in May with the best of intentions, but is already heading the same way.

See the following for past deletions of similarly named list articles;

Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Essentially a nomination that is just WP:CRUFTCRUFT. The assertion that the page is poorly sourced is blatantly false as there are over 100 excellent sources which demonstrate that the topic easily passes WP:LISTN. And there are plenty more sources out there, including entire books on the topic such as Left-Handed History of World. If there are problems with particular entries (which the nomination doesn't detail) then they are best addressed per our policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". Andrew🐉(talk) 20:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination — passingly entertaining but unmaintainable listcruft. Doubtlessly there are specific professions and activities where left-handedness is relevant, but this list is far too general. The topic of left-handedness is notable and deserves an article, but we don't need this heap of trivia. XOR'easter (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that, yes, the page has footnotes. Even trivia can be referenced, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. XOR'easter (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOT does not provide against what this list offers. The guideline clearly enumerates four cases of indiscriminate collections of information. The relevant section is number 3, which states Wikipedia does not use excessive lists of unexplained statistics, but this page is neither unexplained nor statistics. Each entry provides a link to an extant page and further describes who the person is. The page has a clear structure and its purpose is well described in the lead section. There are also notes throughout to explain minutia. JustinMal1 (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a patently absurd recreation of an article overwhelmingly deleted twice. The English Wikipedia has 1.5 million biographies. Of course few are so notable as to have their handedness recorded (precisely because this is so trivial and arbitrary!), but this is not a defining characteristic as to have an article that could hypothetically be 150,000 entries long. Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

150K is nothing special. We already have lists larger than that including species and minor planets. And plenty of huge lists of people including men; women; Americans; English; engineers; writers; Smiths; Jones; &c. To arbitrarily decide that left-handers are not worthy of consideration does not seem neutral. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link is a category – irrelevant. The third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eigth all redirect from "List of" to "Lists of", breaking them down into to manageable topics – List of aerospace engineers is actually a defining characteristic! The last two are disambiguation pages – also irrelevant. The sixth should likewise be converted to a "Lists of": Why should List of English people#Actors and actresses have a completely arbitrary selection of 135 out of the 3,000+ in Category:20th-century English male actors and alone? No, left-handedness is not a defining characteristic and they are not worthy of being in a massive, arbitrary list. Can you cut your bullshit? Reywas92^Talk 02:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are not irrelevant because WP:CLN explains that categories and lists are comparable and complementary; just different techniques for doing much the same thing. The breakdown into sublists is natural when you get many entries and this is exactly what is done in this list too – it is divided into sections in a similar way. The largest sections are those for which left-handedness is especially significant – baseball players like Babe Ruth; boxers like Marvin Hagler; and tennis players like Martina Navratilova. So, the list in question is neither arbitrary nor unstructured; it's exactly the same as all those other examples. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, cut the bullshit. CLN does not say "because one subject is categorized, another unrelated subject must be in a list" – of course you're conveniently neglecting that WP:CAT says "essential—defining—characteristics of a topic", which handedness is not, and WP:LISTCRIT asks "If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance?", and these people are not famous for this trivia. Just because handedness may be significant for boxers does not mean it is significant for authors. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For much of history, writing has been especially difficult for left-handed people -- see A history of left-handed writing, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that these people were subjected to being "train[ed] out of the ‘defect'", then include it on the relevant page. This has nothing to do with a context-free list and is already discussed in the bias article. Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT as overly broad. ~~Ten~~Five times worse than List of blondes. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SALAT states that overly broad lists can be mitigated by sectioning, as this list is by occupation. The page is no different than other lists of arbitrary associations such as List of people from Italy and complies fully with the guidelines laid out in SALAT. JustinMal1 (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Handedness is not a defining characteristic for the most part, only in certain categories. What does it matter if an actor or artist is left-handed? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the references clearly show this is something notable enough that reliable sources cover it. Dream Focus 10:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:I don't like it is no reason to delete it. I agree with user:Andrew Davidson and User:Dream Focus. WP:Preserve and WP:Improve. Clearly meets WP:GNG. The article is especially important, since left-handers suffer from a bias that is well known and significant -- we even have an article about it Bias against left-handed people. Indeed, left handed tendencies has particular relevance for fencers/Swordsmen, boxers, football players, cricketeers, Tennis players, Basketball players, Musicians and baseball players. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevance in certain sports does not justify any relevance for actors, fictional characters, or comedians, nor does having trouble with scissors and firearms have any relevance to politicians, royalty, and astronauts. The article does link three (dubious and arbitrary) subarticles for these topics. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Left-handedness is very important for baseball pitchers and batters, and presumably the same applies to cricket. Boxing, fencing and some other sports also qualify, but I fail to see how being left-handed has any significant effect in association football (unless you count Maradona's infamous [left] hand of God), curling, darts, etc. One day, political correctness may go amok, and people might demand that a movie about Leonardo da Vinci star a left-handed actor, but until that black day, a blanket pass is simply not warranted. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware I said anything about not liking it, or otherwise. My reasons for nominating are exactly as stated. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the list seems to be less relevant than other pages does not mean it should be deleted. This page is viewed around 200 times per day on average and spiked on National Left-Handers Day, showing that it represents an important reference for left-handed people and further, improves Wikipedia. Per WP:NOTPAPER and in agreement with user:Andrew Davidson, User:Dream Focus, and User:7&6=thirteen, I vote to keep the page. JustinMal1 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Number of page hits per day is not really an informative measure of notability or lack thereof. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. These types of pages are what keep Wikipedia fun and interesting to newcomers. Once again, I'm falling back on WP:NOTPAPER. This page represents something to people, deleting it means stripping that away from those who view and enjoy it. I don't think it should be deleted just because precedent makes it so. There have been tangible improvements to this iteration from previous ones which negate the parallel between them. JustinMal1 (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all active users of the previous two AFDs: Pax:Vobiscum, Peterkingiron, Tagishsimon, Iridescent, Alpha 4615, Bfigura, TenPoundHammer, Escape Orbit, Magioladitis, Raven42, Finngall, Pedro, Lilac Soul, Faithlessthewonderboy. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is canvassing. You want to delete the article, others disagree, so you pinged people from discussions that happened 12 to 13 years ago. Dream Focus 23:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. User:Reywas92, Canvas Blatant at that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm well aware of this page, which says "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Section Appropriate notification includes "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". There is absolutely nothing wrong with this common practice, so piss off, both of you. Participants in these overwhelming consensuses (upheld at DRV) have a right to know !voter JustinMal1 above blatantly overturned it by himself by recreating this. Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page with good intentions of bringing back a list of notable left-handed people in a way that complied with Wikipedia guidelines. Previous iterations of similar lists were not well cited and redlinked. This page solves many of the issues other pages were deleted for and it isn't prudent to delete this page just because other, worse versions of it, were deleted. Comparing them as perfect equals disregards the improvements and alterations which make this page better. JustinMal1 (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False equivalence. 'Nuf said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous delete discussions are always relevant for a recreated article. If nothing else, it gives those who support keeping a chance to demonstrate that the reasons for previous deletions have been addressed and no longer apply. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least until the page can be auto-generated and maintained as a WP:Category. Seems like it'd be easy to run through all these entries and associate them with a category label, and then this page gets automatically managed. Adding the references here to the relevant pages would be a plus. jxm (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are for defining characteristics. There is even less rational for a category than there is for a list. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was one of the users pinged above due to my participation in a previous AfD. The current incarnation of the article appears well-sourced and well-written. So, is the topic encyclopedic? Reviewing the AfD from 2007, it looks like at the time I felt it was not. Thirteen years later, I'm less sure. If the article could make the case that the handedness of those listed was in some way an important unifying characteristic, I'd be inclined to argue keep. Unfortunately, the article doesn't really do that. Is left-handedness in the general population significant enough to warrant this list? I think it might be too broad, and that the topic is possibly best addressed with more specificity, e.g. List of southpaw stance boxers, List of left-handed quarterbacks, Left-handed specialist, etc. But the inclusionist in me can see this list being useful to readers, as long as it's properly maintained. I think XOR'easter and Dream Focus both make strong, succinct points. The closing admin can consider this the softest possible "keep" if the decision is razor-thin, but I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Best, faithless (^speak) 21:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adapt and Rename: for most individuals, left-handedness is irrelevant like having blue eyes. The list should be trimmed to include only categories where left-handedness is a significant factor in lives per RS. I think the narrows the list to athletes and musicians, possibly others if a case from RS can be made (as I believe it can for musicians and athletes, but clearly not politicians or comedians). There is already a list for List of musicians who play left-handed so one is covered (the difference between playing and being left-handed can be addressed in the article). If all that is left is List of athletes who are left-handed, rename the article after the trim. // Timothy :: talk 22:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable on its own and there are enough entries which are reliably sourced. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the vast majority of notable people this is not material, and for many it may not even be known. This will inevitably be always an incomplete list. I write this as a left hander.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There exist plenty of lists on Wikipedia which are perpetually incomplete such as List of people from Italy. JustinMal1 (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was also "invoked" by the ping, which I'm not used about (even if it was a debate from 13 years ago! I'm still of the same opinion that it's listcruft and unmaintainable. More, the value of this is a concern. Do we have lists of people with brown hair? Pedro : Chat 14:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Left-handedness is well documented, and moreover is incredibly distinctive. Lists exist across the internet and even in published books with taglines similar to "did you know?" We would never make a list of people with brown hair because it's immediately apparent, whereas left-handedness is interesting and often even surprising. This page helps build a community around a group of people who are often taught from a young age they are wrong for being themselves. Providing a place to finding other people (often incredibly notable people) like them is a great use of Wikipedia space and valuable in its own right. JustinMal1 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol 10% of the population is not "incredibly distinctive." Why in the world should I be "surprised" that Mark Wahlberg, Napoleon, 50 Cent, and one of the Olsen twins is a leftie? Of course there will be about 10% of all famous people who are, and it's still mundane trivia that we don't even bother to put in their respective articles. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS – or should that be "left great wrongs"? Reywas92^Talk 18:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The incidence of left-handers is neither arbitrary nor insignificant. For example, see Professor Selden explain why left-handers are over-represented in post-war presidential politics. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the place for that is on the Handedness article, which covers all these issues. A list article does nothing other than illustrate that, yes, there are an arbitrarily selected number of left handed people that are notable. I don't find anything surprising about this, and indeed if it was significant or distinctive it would be on the articles of the individuals themselves. It usually isn't. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. There was once a time when Wikipedia really embraced these unrealistically large lists as a kind of surrogate for categories - such as List of German people. This particular one seems a strong fail of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to being badly sourced, the people in the list largely not being known for their left handedness, and this therefore largely being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Plus, it not being an "essential—defining—characteristics of a topic" and similar "this is a meaningless list topic" rationales that have already been provided by other people. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to me like a well-referenced and supported list. My bar for lists is low - and this one passes it easily, as it provides good information and lots of wikilinks to find other information, should I choose to do so.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or, change to a List of lists. There are far too many people for this to be a plausible single list, and in many many cases it's trivia (not defining). Where it's not (such as List of musicians who play left-handed or a List of left-handed baseball pitchers), there should be a sub-page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Power~enwiki. Handedness is simply not relevant in most biographical articles except for certain categories of athletes. --Finngall ^talk 00:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ongoing discussion both about whether this topic meets our criteria and whether a reconstituted scope (i.e. as a list of lists) would be appropriate. Relisting to see if consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Power~enwiki and Finngall. Elms^super 05:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Split - power~enwiki has given us a better idea. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against creating encyclopedic lists such as those suggested above by power~enwiki. WP:LISTCRIT says Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence and handedness is only of encyclopedic and topical relevance in a few specific professions. Schazjmd (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In most cases, left-handedness is not a defining characteristic and isn't even mentioned in the subject's own article An exception might be made for certain categories like sports where handedness can affect the dynamics of the game. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with material split where encyclopaedic/notable per power~enwiki. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with everyone above me that is saying that this is only relevant for certain types of people. For a lot of people, the fact that they are left-handed is not even worth a mention in the article. Spiderone 20:05, 7 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. Those interested in mergers or redirects can discuss on appropriate talk pages. I think keep makes sense and is consensus. TY everyone! Missvain (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Controlled Football League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

(was moved to Fan Controlled Football while I was writing up the below)

This was redirected to Salt Lake Screaming Eagles as per a previous AfD outcome, but now is being repeatedly recreated. Personally I can't see the qualitative difference between that version [20] and the current one that would justify this change, and no newer sources have been added... but then soccer league notability is not my forte. A re-assessment may help. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the redirected to Salt Lake Screaming Eagles as per a previous AfD outcome, the American Football (gridiron) league gained momentum and schedule to start it's first season on February 2021. The league conducting camps for players and signed TV deal (Twitch). Furthermore, lately the league get's more publicity in mainstream media, owned by celebrity owners (see article) and has a big presence in social media. It check's all the boxes of notability. StanleyKey (talk · contribs) 00:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial coverage in Washington Post Magazine, Yahoo Sports, Vibe magazine, Sportico and others probably meet the WP:GNG. Keep. Raymie (t • c) 06:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Comparing the history of the pages, you could probably get away with WP:G4. Even though the WaPo article is probably good, I don't think notability has been demonstrated for this league yet, as much of this is primary or violates WP:NORG, and I have severe promotional concerns with the way the article has been presented and written. SportingFlyer T·C 11:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Project Fanchise (unless that page should also be redirected to Salt Lake Screaming Eagles). The proposed league is not notable at this time, but the organization behind it is pretty borderline to meeting GNG. Most coverage on the league itself looks like WP:PROMO, such as announcing celebrity owners. FANchise owned two previous teams and keeps trying to launch a league, which does give a bit more coverage in both WP:RS and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE sources. The fact that they have change the proposed league name now four times in three years makes none of them notable as far as I can tell. Yosemiter (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems moot point at this stage. The league is schedule to begin in less than three months, and it seems that there is a strong media coverage when you look at it online. What's the point in redirecting it again just to start a new argument for it in a few weeks? (regarding the promotional concerns - it's looks borderline ok to me, but I guess it's something that will be corrected over time...) Ccui123 (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article looks well referenced and supported by be reliable sources. The group of owners seems to also add to the notability of the league. I appreciated learning about it via reading the article, and would hate to not have it available to others on our encyclopedia.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing a decent amount of coverage at this time. The question is to whether the news sourcing is independent or merely press releases. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:22, 4 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 Wilbur Hot Springs. Missvain (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur Springs, California[edit]

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

Wilbur Hot Springs is a resort, and always has been. Perhaps some argument can be made that it is notable in that right, though I'm finding precious little to support that. But it is not a town and never has been. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a community. Reywas92^Talk 09:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wilbur Hot Springs. BTW - Wilbur Springs had a post office. Cxbrx (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wilbur Hot Springs, which appears to be the same subject as this article. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:17, 3 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 Neil Diamond discography#Compilations. Missvain (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Neil Diamond[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article which currently does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Diamond is certainly notable and each album should be consistent with a page or merging into his Artist page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 16:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep - It's also rated, although perhaps not reviewed, in The New Rolling Stone Album Guide and The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. There are maybe 50 other 20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection articles--what to do about those (some are already redirects)? The series served as the default greatest hits package for many artists over many years. Caro7200 (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The AllMusic review is boiler plate (see other AfD), otherwise no significant coverage in RS. May also redirect to discography, since that does list it. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neil Diamond discography#Compilations. There is no reliable sources with significant writing about this compilation album. The All Music review is lightweight with half of the review being a boilerplate introduction covering the Millenium Collection series of compilations that the reviewer used for every review of an album in this series. The review itself is insubstantial even before disregarding the boilerplate. It meets neither WP:GNG, nor WP:NALBUM. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with Whpq on all points. Star7924 (talk) 23:06, 7 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 Skeeter Davis discography. Missvain (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Maryfrances"[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article which currently does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the article is kept, it probably does not need the quotation marks in its title, nor the "stylized in all lowercase" comment in the text, just because the album cover got a little fancy with the name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skeeter Davis discography: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Junk Poorly sourced article which currently does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skeeter Davis discography. It's from 1969 so it is unlikely to have modern online sources, and regardless it seems like it was obscure even in its own time. Unless anyone can find long-lost book or magazine reviews from '69, we have too little to go on. Redirect to the artist as is usual for albums of this nature. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as others noted above, redirect to Skeeter Davis discography. Don't see enough resources to support notability. Subject does not warrant a stand-alone page.Star7924 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Fresh[edit]

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

Fails G11, A7, GNG and is promotional to say the very least. Speedy was reverted by Admin, so here's the AfD, folks... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think this article is promotional. The available coverage is mostly contained to YouTube entertainment sites such as Tubefilter and Dankanator, but there is one sigcov article on Uproxx [21]. Definitely on the weaker end of WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst there's no doubt the article could be improved with further citations, I agree that the article does not come across as promotional. Whilst the references are mostly contained to YouTube entertainment sites, these sites are also used for a plethora of YouTube related articles additionally it is supported by wider News sites. It's agreeable that the page is lacking in breadth, as I mentioned on the talk page. But I don't believe this means the page is worth deleting, especially when the article is already marked as a stub.
The available references DO support that the company has a suitable amount of notoriety separate to that of H3H3, and so it makes sense to allow other users to build upon these foundations. The user who originally put the page up for speedy deletion was, quite frankly, being pedantic and felt like an attempt to prevent the page being expanded upon. User:Steel Centurion (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2020 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the previous (and ad hominem) comment was from the page's creator. Nominated for speedy, tags removed by now-indeffed editor, restored by admin. A second editor then made a speedy nomination (I was A7, they went G11) before this AfD. A YouTuber's clothing brand, sold direct or via a single retailer. This is notability? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very mild keep Needs links to newspapers of note or others, not just yahoo~ style or blog-type websites. Would seem to be an established brand but should really be talked about in the New York Times or such to be notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs more notability to be kept up with additional sources. Eric Carr (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am the page's creator - To reiterate, while the article does include these Yahoo! type references, these are intended to open up the article and give it a bit more breadth. Speaking somewhat directly to User: Alexandermcnabb, is Uproxx or the Business Insider not considered a valid source? And if Tubefilter is not considered a valid source I'd like to question why it is valid in the contexts of other YouTube-based articles such as PewDiePie. I also believe that a 'single retailer', when not owned by the company themselves, does not diminish it's notability and fails to recognise the way many popular streetwear brands operate in the modern day i.e Supreme or Rip n Dip. Again, I simply believe it's worth keeping as a stub article as more references will undoubtedly become available as time goes on. Despite my years on this platform I am still a somewhat inexperienced user and so I do appreciate the feedback on this whatever the outcome for the article, thanks - Steel Centurion (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I have not done a detailed search for sources so will not comment on notability. The Teddy Fresh Wikipedia article notes, "Teddy Fresh is an American streetwear brand established by YouTuber and artist Hila Klein in October 2017."
There is a clear merge target at H3H3Productions (which Hila Klein redirects to) if the article is determined to be non-notable.
Cunard (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to H3H3Productions. Blacklisteffort (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note - the above editor is a now-blocked sockpuppet (not sure if that matters here or not). Regardless of that, a vote without explanation or reason isn't the most helpful. - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete No indication of being notable. It is one of many hundreds of thousands of street-ware brands with a funky name. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL14 and WP:DEL4. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:DEL4 as well as WP:SIGCOV. I don't believe this is promotional, just poorly written, can be merged with articles of related subjects. Prolix 💬 16:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial of Prime Ministers of Canada[edit]

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

No evidence that this trivial intersection of characteristics is a notable subject. Fram (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Article is WP:NOTABLE because other countries, like the UK, have similar lists, just written better and have a lead section. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check WP:NOTABLE: nothing is notable in country X because it is notable in country Y, notability is not inherited or transferred like that. Each article needs to show notability on its own. Fram (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion of presidential coats of arms of Austria, Ireland, Iceland and Chile. It cannot be called typical for a prime minister of Canada to have armorials. Geschichte (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems that having an Armorial is not a defining characteristic of being a Prime Minister of Canada as only some of them have one. --Bduke (talk) 07:20, 3 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. WK - improve please! Missvain (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final Cut (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial band from Detroit. The article originated as a redirect to The Final Cut (band) which has the same unreliable "sources" provided as this one. Then in 2020, the notorious Soul Crusher expanded the article, so now we have two articles on the same non-notable band. This is going to be a double deletion nomination, as I propose that to deletion as well:

The Final Cut (band)

That's the same band, the only difference is the word "The" in front of the name and the fact that the article has been sitting here since 2005, while this version exists since 2020. I don't see why we need two articles on the same band, especially when it's not notable. Anyways, the sourcing is dreadful in both articles - the record label, myspace and a blank Allmusic page, these don't establish any notability. As I see, their albums have been released on notable, major labels which is a sign of notability, of course, but I brought this here due to the sourcing, as the articles does not contain any RS nor did I found any (with the exception of the presented Exclaim link) - just the same old unreliable stuff: databases, WP mirrors, streaming links, youtube videos and blogs. I have found some album reviews but they are featured on blogs, and most of them are short. I have also found trivial news about them reissuing one of their albums, which I do not consider to be reliable. The only reliable source is this: Exclaim Album Review, and that's it. Allmusic has reviewed one of their albums, but it's a really short review, and the biography page of the band itself is blank, which makes it unreliable. The other album reviews I found are featured on blogs, which I have already mentioned. One decent source is a good start, but not enough. So, all in all, I think this is a non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator uncovered a bizarre sequence of events. The Final Cut (band) has been sitting around for a long time, and Final Cut (band) (without "The") was a redirect to it until two months ago. But then User:Soul Crusher turned the redirect into an exact copy of the article it used to point to. That cannot be a beginner's mistake because copying from the older article requires knowledge of its existence, but the motivation for the copy/paste exercise is a mystery. At least one of those should be speedy deleted as a duplicate. Also note that the History/Biography section of the older article was almost entirely written in 2006 by User:Cr33py, who is also listed as a member of the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (one of the duplicates) - The band just barely passes the notability requirements at WP:NBAND, but my vote is "Weak Keep" because most of their media notice is for one album. Deep Into the Cut was reviewed briefly by AllMusic ([22]) and more extensively by The Quietus ([23]) and The Wire ([24]). The band also has a basic introduction at AllMusic ([25]), though info on the band themselves is sketchy otherwise. In fairness it looks like they have enough for a basic stub article, though the one that remains needs to be pared down significantly to verifiable facts. From album covers it appears that Final Cut (no "The") is the true name of the band; admins can figure out how to preserve the history after the messy redirects and re-creations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh, I just noticed that Cr33py is a member of the band, and yes, he wrote most of the article. So there is a massive COI involved. As for the sources, the Allmusic bio is brief, but it's okay for a start. The AM album review is really short - I have already mentioned that. The Wire piece is a basic short introduction and an album stream. I don't consider that reliable. The Quietus piece is great, as it reviews the album. So we have two good sources now: The Quietus and Exclaim. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I'm an industrial fan! Clearly there are notable people *connected* to this band, but whether the band itself is notable I don't know. This article needs more RS - someone add the RS, if it exists, and I will change my vote. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDOOMSDAYER520 has kindly offerred to work on the article, and I think the older one looks better sources than the newer one. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not incredibly passionate about it, but in my "Weak Keep" vote above, I listed some acceptable sources. If the article survives, I can fix it up later by adding sources and removing junk. Admins should note that the redirect/duplicate situation also needs to be cleared up if one of the articles is kept. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the older article as per the reliable sources coverage identified by Doomsdayer in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - I don't think any further relisting is necessary as we have a consensus for at least a weak keep for the band. What we need is for an admin to figure out which of the two duplicate articles to keep while preserving the edit history in whatever fashion is necessary per policy. Final Cut (band) or The Final Cut (band) -- and we can conclude that their name does not contain "The". Once that is done, I can spruce up the surviving article as noted above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:10, 3 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 02:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Brumbaugh[edit]

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

I have struggled to find reliable, secondary sources that discuss this subject extensively - I have only found primary sources and passing mentions. I have a feeling it might be WP:TOOSOON for this musician to have a Wikipedia article per WP:MUSICIAN and GNG.

Thank you everyone for your consideration and volunteerism! Missvain (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, too soon. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She is pretty, and good luck to her, but as of now, she is not a Wikipedia topic. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article by SPA editor. Getting oneself name-checked in articles doesn't constitute significant coverage ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable clarinetist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 4 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 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Missvain (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Enforcement Division[edit]

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

The article for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Enforcement Division is not a notable enough topic on its own. It should be merged with the article for its parent organization, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnemeeples (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a redirect to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and caution about what content to actually merge there. Much of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Enforcement Division article is unverified lore, facts that fail verification, and trivial lists of information. Little of the enforcement division article should actually be merged into Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnemeeples (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no good reason to merge this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Minnemeeples above, with very limited merge of content. Elms^super 07:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. State-level department division is not independently notable. KidAd talk 00:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Top Country & Western Records of 1951[edit]

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

Not a list of number-one country songs, just the top songs or artists from the year each ripped directly from a single issue of Billboard. This topic is not discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NLIST. The number-one country song of each year is covered in List of Billboard Year-End number-one singles and albums. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is core encyclopedic content. For the past 70 years, Billboard had issued year-end charts of each year's records in the pop, R&B, and country genres. We have built out the full set of such lists for pop music (see, e.g., Billboard year-end top 30 singles of 1950, Billboard year-end top 30 singles of 1951). I have now begun the process of building out the parallel lists for the country genre. These are extremely valuable lists. Cbl62 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination appears to be a pointy response to my reverting the nominator's undiscussed page move. The AfD nomination was made three hours after the article was created and 13 minutes after I reverted the nominator's page move. I try to assume good faith, but it's challenging in this case. Cbl62 (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had already tagged the article for notability concerns. Issues with the name as well as the list are independent of each other, but both should be dealt with in case consensus is to keep. It is not encyclopedic to copy and paste the top lists from every Billboard year-end issue and Wikipedia should not be doing so. Should we have lists for each year's top rock songs, top R&B songs, top jazz songs, top streaming songs? Albums, artists, producers? There should be historical relevance/significance shown with coverage in independent reliable sources available to do so. It is well enough to note within the articles of the songs from these lists where it placed on the year-end charts, not republish Billboard's year-end issue in its entirety. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard is the authoritative source for year-end rankings of historic songs from the 1940s and 1950s. As noted above, we have an identical series of articles on pop records which reflect Billboard's year-end charts. See Billboard year-end top 30 singles of 1950, Billboard year-end top 30 singles of 1951, et al. Those have existed for years without anyone making claims of the type now asserted by the nom. How is it that this has never been a problem for the pop chart but it is now an issue when analogous lists are created for the country chart? Cbl62 (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the nominator's slippery slope argument is misplaced. During the 1940s and 1950s, Billboard published three types of charts: Pop, Country, and R&B. Each of these are enormously important in assessing and studying the history, development, and growth of American music during these critical decades. Nobody is suggesting that we create lists for other year-end lists published by bloggers or lesser publications. Further, the Billboards lists are not subjective, opinion-based "best of" lists. They reflect objective and official hard data on record sales and juke box plays. Cbl62 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard is a primary and only source here, and I never mentioned lists from bloggers or lesser publications. Other independent reliable sources do not discuss these lists in any detail. Just because something else exists, doesn't mean it should and doesn't mean the scope should be further broadened. Are we just going to republish the entirety of Billboard's year-end issues now? That's where this will lead. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard is indeed the primary source (it's their list after all), but it's not the only source. I've already added two other sources. As 1951 is in the pre-Interent age, sources are difficult to uncover, and an AfD three hours after creation is really a bit much. Nobody is remotely suggesting republishing entire issues of Billboard. That is simply an argument ab absurdum. Cbl62 (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this survives, I don't see why others wouldn't be allowed to create lists from every year-end chart published from, for example, the 1979 year-end issue of Billboard. There are top lists for pop singles and albums, country singles and albums, soul singles and albums, disco hits, adult contemporary, Latin albums, classical albums, and jazz albums. I mean it's all history from the authoritative source that should be duplicated here for encyclopedic preservation. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be judged on its own merits, not based on speculation that it might encourage someone to create an article on the best selling disco or Latin records of 1979. This is sort of a reverse OSE argument. (We already have the 1979 pop singles list BTW: Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1979.) Cbl62 (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note on article development. The article is not simply a list "ripped" from an issue of Billboard. The article at this point, several hours after its creation, includes substantial content above and beyond the list published by Billboard. Moreover, the sourcing far exceeds that found in any of the other year-end Billboard chart articles. Compare Billboard Top Country & Western Records of 1951 and Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1978. Cbl62 (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a lot of puffery to me to make it look more substantial than it is. What does other people's lists from the year or noting a Time-Life release from 1991 that happens to contain some of these songs have to do with anything? It looks like you would be better off expanding the 1951 in country music article since the Billboard year-end list is not something discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources as required per WP:NLIST. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you're so determined to exorcise this article, but the article actually does now include independent sourcing discussing the group. E.g., this. Similar coverage of this type is likely available in multiple newspapers, but is hard to uncover in the pre-Internet era. Cbl62 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly per Cbl62. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic article. Passes WP:GNG. Tessaracter (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Charting helps establish notability for recordings so it would seem to be a valid index, and these also help document what was popular in American music for these years. The nom says, "I don't see why others wouldn't be allowed to create lists from every year-end chart published..." Yeah, why not? I can't remotely see why that would be a terrifying prospect, but to each their own. postdlf (talk) 18:35, 4 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 Princeton Public Schools. (Y'all can always ping me on my talk page if you see a snow-like consensus like this.) Missvain (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Park Elementary School[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For primary schools we need very strong showing of notability which is totally lacking in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princeton Public Schools as is standard in such cases. There is nothing notable here and nothing worth merging. Alansohn (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princeton Public Schools clearly non-notable, but agree with Alansohn to redirect. Pahunkat (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princeton Public Schools, this is fairly standard for elementary schools. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princeton Public Schools. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princeton Public Schools due to being a run of the mill elementary school and it lacking multiple in-depth reliable sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:17, 5 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.