< December 04	December 06 >

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andro Mumladze[edit]

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

The article claims that he was an international footballer but this is not backed up by reliable sources. Evidence suggests that he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone 22:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't believe it lasted 6 years. Geschichte (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Szymańska[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone 22:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, passing NFOOTBALL (which she does not seem to do, anyway) alone should be insufficient anyway. No pl wiki interwiki is a red flag too. At best, WP:TOOSOON.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Kendrigan[edit]

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

I don't see any notability or historical significance. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that any applicable criteria is met. Subject's notability seems to be tied only to her murder. Per WP:VICTIM and WP:BIO1E, in cases like that, the article should be about the murder. "Murder of Catherine Kendrigan" or similar. However, while the entirety of the content is about that crime (rather than the victim), there is nothing to indicate that the crime meets WP:NCRIME or WP:LASTING. (A WP:BEFORE search in books and newspapers returns just one mention in one book (The District of Loughrea: History, 1791-1918) and a handful of contemporary newspaper accounts. Nothing lasting.) Firm delete. Wikipedia is not a compendium of every crime ever. Guliolopez (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reason for a separate wiki article. Kolma8 (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As previously noted, this article has been of dubious notability all along, I simply can't find anything about the person or crime to rise to the level required by GNG. SeoR (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As already noted, this article seems to be about someone who's only notable for being murder. Per WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM, the article should be about the event (ie. the murder) if the event itself is notable. But, the crime, per WP:NCRIME, doesn't meet notability. So a potential move doesn't make sense. Samsmachado (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure case of WP:BIO1E, and as already pointed out, the murder doesn't meet notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Champion of the Common Man[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2009 at this page, and since 2005 at Common man; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common man in 2008 did not delete a page very similar to this one. I find no sources about the term as a term. Every entry other than Andrew Jackson fails verification, but I don't think that's a plausible redirect target; neither is common man. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be original research with no set criteria or definition of who should be included in the list. Suonii180 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced original research. -gtrmp (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azrin Shariful Bahri[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Does not satisfy association football notability. Has not played in first-tier professional play, only second-tier. With only one reference, does not satisfy general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to have ever played in a fully professional league as per the wiki football league list, not notable Seasider91 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Spiderone 21:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Meets neither Wp:GNG or WP:NFOOTY.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Crimson Avenger. Missvain (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Avenger (Jill Carlyle)[edit]

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

Zero real world notability. Nothing but blurbs in fan magazines. WP:PLOT applies to the current article. No true in-depth coverage exists, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crimson Avenger- While the overall moniker of the Crimson Avenger is notable, I'm not finding much that would justify this particular incarnation being split off into an independent article separate from the main topic. The only non-primary sources being used in the article are little listicle blurbs or extremely passing mentions (the "Superhero Comics" book, for example, has exactly one sentence mentioning her), and I'm not finding much else beyond that in searches. The little tidbits of sourced info here can be merged to the main article on the Crimson Avenger. Rorshacma (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow. Talk about premature. I was thinking of self merging it again myself. The main source that stands out is the DC Comics character guide book by DK where she is with all the rest of the major players. Though I am not sure that’s enough. An close accomplishment though if we could find more sources though which I wanted to root for. Anyways an AFD was still unneeded when we could have done a simple merge request. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Crimson Avenger. Not seeing sources that would pass GNG, but merging is the solution here, not deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Crimson Avenger. Another over-eager AfD that shouldn't have filed to begin with. The proper process for this is outlined over there. Dark knight 2149 01:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. This version of the character split off like the original Crimson Avenger so that it would mostly detail about this incarnation. Plus, @Jhenderson777: is right about about this AFD being premature and unneeded. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Crimson Avenger per above. // Timothy :: talk 10:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above but there is not much to merge. And no, AfDs are fine to determine whether there is consensus for merge, delete redirect or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The sole purpose of AfD is to nominate articles for deletion (and there is specific criteria for deletion). There are other venues for redirects and merging. AfD isn't a one-stop-shop for "I have a problem with this article". That other stuff usually happens when the community disagrees with the nomination to delete. Dark knight 2149 00:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Darkknight2149, It is common and perfectly acceptable to support an AtD at an AfD. From the first paragraph of WP:AFD: "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." // Timothy :: talk 01:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wickhead[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page:

Non-notable band/musician created by an WP:SPA more than 14 years ago. The one claim in the article is not verified, discogs and MySpace(!) are the refs used, and there's only one incoming link stating they've covered a song by Depeche Mode. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've found some coverage [1] [2] [3] but I don't think that it's quite enough. At the very least, Mark van Heerden should be deleted. Spiderone 18:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability. Kolma8 (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:14, 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 redirect. Geschichte (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coso, California[edit]

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

Since there are a double handful of places having "Coso" as part of their names, including another spot with the exact same name, it's just not possible to construct a search which picks this spot out of all the competition. But the topos tell the story clearly enough: it was just another siding on the SP line, with no settlement around it. Mangoe (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very short article. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coso Junction, California. If this were a WP:GEOLAND pass it might still be kept even with a short article, but with another place with the exact same name (that I see earthquake coverage for) there's no reason to keep it per nom. FOARP (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coso Junction, California. Yep, this is rather confusing, there at least three Cosos in Inyo County: Coso, California, Coso (former settlement), California and Coso Junction, California. Coso, California and Coso Junction, California are fairly close together. Coso (former settlement), California is elsewhere, see Ghost Towns of Death Valley. Coso did not have a post office, though Coso Junction did. Searching for 'Coso "Southern Pacific" ' found various railroad hits. It appears Coso was on the Jawbone branch, so searching for Jawbone might find more hits. Cxbrx (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coso Junction, California per above. // Timothy :: talk 03:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Watkins[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a business writer and consultant, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing our notability standards for either of those occupations. The notability claim here is essentially that he and his work exist, rather than that he's received any noteworthy awards or distinctions for any of it -- and right across the board, the references are entirely to the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, rather than any evidence that he has received any third party reliable source coverage about him or his work in real media. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test is not having a job, it's the extent to which media have or haven't paid attention to his work in the job. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not immediately obvious from perusing Google Scholar that the subject passes, for example, criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. On the other hand, he does have a respectable number of citations and is clearly not an anonymous professor without any significant impact. Comparing Watkins to the other scholars categorized in Category:Negotiation scholars, his citation counts are comparable to those of Gerard Nierenberg, and better than Herb Cohen, Stuart Diamond, Leonard J. Marcus, and Ronald M. Shapiro. (This is just a first impression, not a definitive assessment, but if Watkins is deleted then those last three subjects may be candidates for deletion as well.) Perhaps an argument could be made that he passes WP:NACADEMIC, but someone would have to make that argument because it doesn't seem to be a prima facie case of academic notability. If someone wants to try to make that case, one good source of evidence, beyond the citation counts, would be reviews of his books in peer-reviewed journals (not in HBR). Biogeographist (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC) and 16:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he does pass WP:PROF#C1 and also (although I haven't taken the time to demonstrate it by finding published reviews) likely passes WP:AUTHOR through his many high-profile business-leadership books. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I stubbed down the promotional part of the article and added reviews of several of his books. He definitely passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes now thanks to David Eppstein's research. Biogeographist (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR as a few of Watkins' books have numerous reviews and are entitled to own wikiarticles. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, his citation count would seem to meet WP:NSCHOLAR, and appears to meet WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swish (organization)[edit]

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

2010 stub of an organisation tagged for notability a decade ago. I have not found any further sources to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was a thing years ago. Was it really notable? Bearian (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I am not convinced that it passes WP:NORG. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Leonard Maltin. Missvain (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Maltin[edit]

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

Is she notable, or is it her father, or the show. There seem to be no references written directly about her. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leonard Maltin (the SXSW detail could be merged as well, but his entry is already unwieldy so I can’t immediately say whether it’s essential info). I found one further source and added it to the entry but it tends to reconfirm he is the notable figure and doesn’t help expand an entry about her. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested and per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who Needs Feminism[edit]

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

A one-off university-based social media event imparting no encyclopedic value. Hence calling for an AfD discussion. However, If not delete, then this page could be merged with the Counterculture page, under the United States section. Hatchens (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable photo campaign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like it needs a trim for length and tone, but between the Mashable source, Bustle [4], North Carolina public radio [5], and some scholarly attention [6][7][8][9] (also [10] for a peer-reviewed primary source), I think the notability bar is met. (There was also a summary by marketing consultants, of all people [11].) I'd also be open to a merge if a good target were identified; Counterculture#United_States doesn't seem like a good fit. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources more than meets WP:GNG. Artw (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG and has many sources. Peter303x (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Agree with XOR'easter that a merge with Counterculture#United_States is not a good fit. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

9 Mile Station, California[edit]

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

No GNIS entry in the county for "9 Mile Station", "Nine Mile Station", or "Ninemile Station". There's a Ninemile Canyon that appears on topos near the supposed location in the Linnie vicinity, but no Ninemile station or community. Newspapers.com only brought up stuff for places near Taft, California, Gustine, California, and Los Banos, California, all of which are far enough away to be evidently referring to other locations. Not in Gudde's place names or gold camps books. Not seeing any way this passes WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Somehow the entries sourced only to Durham seem to be ever more likely to be non-notable that those sourced only to GNIS. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GEOLAND fail. FOARP (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; clearly never a settlement Spiderone 14:48, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clark, California[edit]

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

No GNIS entry. Does not appear on topographic maps. Could only find hits for last names on newspapers.com. Does not appear in Gudde's place names book or Gudde's gold camps books. I don't have access to Durham, but given the extreme lack of information on this in the other standard sources, I'd say this fails WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Not in GNIS. Searching some of the Death Valley resources found in GBooks found one possible mention of Clark. As this location was not legally recognized, nor does it have non-trivial coverage, #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met, so this article should be deleted. Cxbrx (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GEOLAND per Cxbrx and nom Spiderone 22:25, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Siding, California[edit]

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

No such place is marked on the topographic maps for the area, nor is there a GNIS entry for "Bradford Siding". Can't access Durham, so I don't know what he calls it, but stuff like this suggests that it's some sort of railroad feature, probably a siding. It's sometimes spelled Bradford siding, with that capitalization strongly implying a railroad siding. I can find no evidence there was ever an actual community here. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GNIS is often erroneous, and Durham's book is ultimately a listing of place-names, not necessarily a list of populated place. With no hits of any kind for newspapers, books etc. it just looks like this was simply a siding. FOARP (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No post office. Not in GNIS. Newspapers.com has a couple of railroad-specific hits for "Bradford Siding", so WP:STATION applies and this location has no non-trivial coverage. A History of Amargosa Valley states that there was a clay mill at Bradford Siding, built from an old submarine engine. JStor had no hits. GBooks found one hit in The History of the Death Valley Region the same info in Death Vally and the Amargosa and some 1915 railroad references. This location has no legal recognition and there is no non-trivial coverage so #1 and #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met. Cxbrx (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 22:26, 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. Closing this for numerous reasons as a keep at this point. Feel free to examine things on the talk page, proceed accordingly, with civility. You can also re-nominate, if needed, but hopefully we'll sort it out. Missvain (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Panamint Springs, California[edit]

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

Another Inyo County resort: its website is the first Ghit. Every reference I find to the name is either the resort itself or to it as a locale or dot on the map. It doesn't seem notable as a business. Mangoe (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment weak keep, It seems notable enough. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A number of sources mentioning the site's accomodations, but no evidence this is a community. Most content in article is fluff. Panamint Valley could mention the motel. Reywas92^Talk 01:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a definite community/population center, albeit small, and it did in fact have a post office [12]. Oakshade (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The citation says specifically that the post office was established to serve visiting tourists. In any case we have long ago determined that a post office in the US does not imply a surrounding community. Mangoe (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's unsurprising that a remote motel in a then-national monument may have postal service, but "serv[ing] the tourists" is not the same as being a community. It mentions Scotty's Castle as also having a post office but that's likewise just a ranch tourists visited and stayed at. If this article is kept it should be rewritten as about the resort itself rather than pretending to be a town because the motel's proprietors lived at the property. Places of interest in the Death Valley area may be a merge target. Reywas92^Talk 02:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's good enough for the USPO, Google Maps [13], the Inyo County official website [14] (where Panamint Springs is listed as one of the "communities" in District 5), the National Park Service (which says that Darwin Falls is "Located just west of Panamint Springs ...") [15], and Expedia [16], then it belongs on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google Maps imports its data from GNIS and also labels industrial railroad spur Susie, WA and is not determinant of being notable or a community. "Located just west of Panamint Springs" is accurate but does not mean it is a community, nor do these sites in the area preclude mention at Places of interest in the Death Valley area. Expedia's page is utter bullshit. It's a single motel and campsite owned by one family, it is not a town, and has neither "motels" nor "hotels". The operators of the resort residing there does not make a community. The resort does "not receive U.S. Mail deliveries" so it's obviously not good enough for the USPO. Reywas92^Talk 07:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you know better than the officials of Inyo County about what is and what isn't a community in their county. [17]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Yilloslime (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Update: The article is now about the resort rather than the place, but I'm not seeing that WP:GNG is met either. Yilloslime (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you are of the opinion that the officials of Inyo County don;t know what is and isn't a community in their county? [[18]

Comment I did a requested page move. Article is now at Panamint Springs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz You really shouldn't have moved the article. One of the participants here basically hijacked the article and rewrote it to be about the resort and not the community, but -- as we can see from the Inyo County official website -- it *is* a community. I assume that the request came from that editor. Your page move basically usurped the AfD discussion. I believe you should undo it and allow the AfD process to play out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Official website calls it a resort, along with TripAdvisor. News clippings [19][20][21], among others in the archives, call it a resort. Content that reflects the sources is not "hijacking": Do NOT remove this sourced content from the article again. There is absolutely nothing there besides the resort, all owned by a single company and consisting of a motel, campsites, a restaurant, and service station. Inyo County official website also lists "Panamint Springs" as a local business that received covid aid, and even the business's proprietors as the only residents would be considered a "community" of coworkers, it is not the same as a town or village that would have an article title presenting it as such. The article's subject should be about a resort per the sources, rather than pretending the owners and employees are a community or populated place and the resort just happens to be located within it. Reywas92^Talk 21:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - This AfD is now worthless and should be considered invalid. The basic argument of the "delete" voters is that Panamint Springs, California is a resort and not a community. One of those delete voters went and totally re-wrote the article so that it was about the resort and not the community -- a community which the officials of Inyo County list as existing ias one of the communities in their "District 5". By WP:HIJACKING the article in that manner, and then asking an admin to move the article to another name, that editor poisoned the well, and should be sanctioned for doing so.
This AfD should be closed as invalid, the article restored from its hijacked state to the status quo ante and a new AfD opened with the article fully protected and an admonition to participants at the new AfD not to repeat the hijacking. This is the only fair way to come to a true consensus about the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz I have to say I cannot find record of that request, and I agree that it has caused discord here. That said, the presenting problem continues to be that the only Panamint Springs is by all evidence completely encompassed by the resort. And it seems to me that too much is being made of the passage on the Inyo website, as looking at the other supervisor pages reveals different language and mostly lists places which are CDPs, as well as what appear to be subdivisions and the vast pseudo-town that is (or in reality isn't) Charleston View. It's hardly an official List of Communities. Mangoe (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a right to be accurate, whether it is at AFD or not. Nothing in the current version of the article is inaccurate. It is a resort – as the status quo ante described it with its history and features! The employees can live at the resort/accomodations/facilities and it's still a resort. Yes under a dictionary definition of the word "community", that people live on-site as a social group in a locality, it is a community, but it should not be treated as such – on the level of a town, village, CDP – in the encyclopedia, as the history and substance is about the resort, not the population. There is no basis whatsoever for sanctioning for adding citations to an article with sourced content that reflects it, though I apologize for the move request that did not need to be done during this discussion. Reywas92^Talk 06:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I recently declined a request at WP:RFPP to fully protect this article because of the changes that were being made to it during an AfD. I declined it because that isn't what page protection is for. Looking through the history of the page and reading through this AfD, I have a few comments about the process, but I'm not offering any opinion on whether or not this article should be deleted. Firstly, it's ok to edit articles during an AfD, per WP:EDITATAFD (and good-faith improvements to an article during an AfD shouldn't be reverted only because they were made during an AfD). It's even ok to move articles during an AfD. However, it's also true that heavily editing and moving articles during an AfD can disrupt the discussion and make it very difficult for the closing admin to determine consensus, because many voters are discussing totally different versions of the article throughout the course of the AfD. My suggestion to everyone here: let the AfD run its course. If people want to edit the article, let them edit the article. Definitely don't start an edit war over it. If, at the conclusion of the AfD, you believe that the result was tainted by heavy editing of the article, and you still believe that there are policy-based reasons that the current version of the article should be deleted, then start another AfD soon after this one ends and explain your reasoning in the nomination statement. While it's unusual to run AfDs back-to-back like that, I think it would be reasonable to do so if there is a good-faith argument that the first AfD was disrupted, as long as there are still valid reasons to delete the improved article. I'd also recommend that the closing admin provide their opinion on whether the discussion was disrupted to the point that a speedy renomination would be reasonable. ‑Scottywong | [babble] || 04:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Panamint Springs is a business but there are individuals residing on-site that are not employees, including and beyond families. As a business it is also notable, being one of 3 main lodging areas within Death Valley NP, the western gateway to the park, and having a long history dating back to the 1930s. It's also the only lodging, large campground, restaurant, and fuel stop within Panamint Valley. If other DV area landmarks, like Teakettle Junction; Ballarat, CA; and Skidoo, CA; all have Wikipedia pages, why shouldn't Panamint Springs?

Also-- There are other things near the resort that are still referred to as being part of "Panamint Springs" that are not owned by the company. E.g. the old, unused Caltrans station south/west of the Cassell property.

— Preceding

unsigned comment added by Rafikim (talk • contribs) 00:24, 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) 02:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oneupweb[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2010 article about a digital marketing agency created by a near-SPA and with no real indication of notability. Some run of the mill sector awards. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still as non-notable as it was during the 2007 AfD. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH, current citations are incredibly old and mostly consist of routine coverage and the article hasn't been improved in many years. Prolix 💬 16:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with above comments. Many citations are very old and I don't see any major media. I have seen marketing companies more notable than this being deleted. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The company's activities since the 2007 AfD may merit reconsideration of this WP:SPA instance created and curated since 2010, but the article does no more than describe a company going about its business, with no indication of encyclopaedic notability, supported by coverage of awards and routine announcements which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. My searches are not finding evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that WP:NPOL is satisfied. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zaffar Iqbal Manhas[edit]

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

The subject has served at some posts which are non-notable. It fails to satisfy WP:POET and WP:ANYBIO. He was also appointed as a member of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Council for Shopian district. MLCs are not assembly or parliament representatives or elected members and hence it fails to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN (an MLC is appointed by other politicians and not by the voters). Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and local news sources and press releases alone are not enough to determine notability. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads he knows "English, Kashmiri, Urdu, Hindi, Persian, Dogri, Gojri and Punjabi languages. All the mentioned languages (excluding English and Persian) are regional languages of the Jammu and Kashmir and are generally known to everyone and hence fails to pass WP:CREATIVE

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ummm! Person who has been members of "legislative bodies" at those levels are generally considered notable, according to WP:NPOL. We should wait for the opinions from the experts on politic of India. VocalIndia (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN was a member of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Council.Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither an national nor international government system. In Indian political system, it only applies to Lok Sabha, the lower house of the national government. WP:POLITICIAN further reads "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". If MLCs are notable then why we don't have articles about district judges in India? In my opinion, MLC doesn't passes WP:POLITICIAN TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian political system is federal, therefore NPOL applies to both national and state levels and to both lower and upper houses. These bodies derive their power directly from the constitution and are part of law-making process independently. -- Ab207 (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted or redirected to the List of members of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Council. Almost every MLC-related articles have held notable positions but the article in question has not held any notable position. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NPOL, as it states that "members of legislative bodies" at state/province level are presumed notable in a federal system of government, which India has. Tristan Surtel (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL. VocalIndia (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current content of the article is irrelevant to AfD. It's a strange position to argue that as the members of the Legislative Council are appointed this voids their notability under WP:NPOL. Their notability stems not from the method of election, but their role within the institution, ie its legislative notability. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn:, MLCs are the unelected members representing an area (i.e a district is represented by two unelected members (MLCs) not by a single MLC alone). I referred to "voters" to clarify the difference between an assembly member (MLA) and an unelected council member (MLC). TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also their role in constitution of India[22]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The method of election is irrelevant. (FWIW the vast majority of the J&K MLCs were not "unelected", rather they were simply not *directly* elected by the general population, but they were elected). The Indian LCs have/had legislative oversight – this is what makes these houses and their members notable.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NPOL. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. MLCs are members of upper house of the state legislative body, which meets the criteria established by NPOL. The manner of election is different than the lower house but that's by design, to bring in more diversity to the law-making procedure. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this would be the equivalent of someone in the Senate of any of the U.S. states, which definitely qualifies as passing WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards[edit]

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

This seems to be a textbook case of a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation that does not warrant a stand-alone article. I was tempted to bundle in List of Belgian artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards, List of Finnish artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards and List of Russian artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards but at least those lists have more than one entry. There is simply no evidence to suggest that any reliable sources have dedicated any serious level of coverage into categorising MTV Europe Award winners by their nationality. This seems to be something that only Wikipedia has attributed any importance to.

The content is already covered in MTV Europe Music Award for Best Song, MTV Europe Music Award for Best New Act, MTV Europe Music Award for Best Album and List of awards and nominations received by Duffy so we lose nothing through deleting this.

WP:LISTN - this is not covered significantly by reliable sources independent of the subject
WP:LISTPURP - this list is not a valuable information source, it does not assist in navigation and it does not aid in development of the encyclopaedia
WP:SALAT - I don't believe that this list meets the principles outlined here; it's too specific to have any encyclopaedic value and I do not personally believe that it contributes effectively to this great encyclopaedia
WP:ATD - I would strongly oppose any attempt to merge this article as its content is already in enough places as mentioned above this bullet point list. There is no obvious redirect target and it's not a plausible search term. The article is too old to be sent to draft space. Spiderone 14:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, boyo. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NLIST and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
should we delete List of Dutch artists nominated for MTV Europe Music Awards?--Spacejam2 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially. The issue is that there do not seem to be reliable sources discussing the nationality of the award winners. If we, as editors, need to compile the information ourselves, then this is WP:OR, which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia Spiderone 17:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Robert Anstruther[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and GNG and uses unreliable sources. Not Notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He appears in the London Gazette a few times which could back up claims of notability and statements in the article. I'm not familiar with referencing from that publication but will have a go later tonight if the creator hasn't added by then. JW 1961 Talk 16:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NSOLDIER. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 17:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or redirect to Battle of Bronkhorstspruit. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV. The first sentence is a give-away. He did nothing notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:03, 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) 02:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mophun games[edit]

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

Mophun (last seen at Draft:Mophun) has been deleted, so if the platform itself is not wikiworthy, I guess this list of games isn't either. Geschichte (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list that clearly fails WP:LISTN as it lacks any reliable sources to verify the information. This list also does not meet any purposes outlined at WP:LISTPURP. Spiderone 13:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G8. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Foxnpichu, I don't necessarily agree with a speedy. G8 is more administrative things. A list of things can be notable even if the publisher isn't notable. I think there are other valid arguments for deletion. ~RAM (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me an example? Foxnpichu (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing notable about Mophun or its catalogue of games. Ajf773 (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. Azuredivay (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:57, 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Wint[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is from technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL for playing 5 minutes of professional football for Scunthorpe in the Johnstone's Paint Trophy; a totally inconsequential substitute appearance. I could find no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG from this appearance alone nor his subsequent career as an amateur. There is a growing consensus that footballers that only just pass NFOOTY can and should be deleted if GNG is comprehensively failed. The best sources that I could find were a match report and a transfer announcement both of which were in local papers. Spiderone 13:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. Giant Snowman 14:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A completely non-notable figure in the context of a general encyclopaedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:11, 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) 02:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BoberTea[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP scope_creep^Talk 13:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, lacks evidence supporting notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Prolix 💬 16:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 18:52, 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) 02:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Aitken[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NARTIST scope_creep^Talk 12:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very limited exhibition record and no museum collections found online for this artist. A non-notable award + four "finalist" rankings for an award does not contribute to notability requirements of WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Does not meet WP criteria for inclusion at this time. Netherzone (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above reasoning. There's not much available in terms of RS on this artist. Possibly (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Netherzone. No major galleries, did not win any major awards. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 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) 02:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Springfield, Missouri[edit]

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

The fact that none of these buildings appear in List of tallest buildings in Missouri speaks volumes.

This fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Emporis and Skyscraperpage do not constitute significant coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Springfield, Missouri' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
No significant high-rise building under construction so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The city is not the largest in Missouri nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building being taller than 30m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in Chicago or Atlanta so why are we doing it here?
This currently violates WP:NOTMIRROR as the article mostly mirrors Emporis and Skyscraperpage.

Similar AfDs for reference: List of tallest buildings in Amherst, Massachusetts and List of tallest buildings in Thunder Bay Spiderone 12:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the buildings listed is exceptional. None have articles about them. The two or three tallest buildings could be mentioned in the article about Springfield, Missouri and that would be quite sufficient. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DanielRigal. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, there is nothing there that can assist in navigation. // Timothy :: talk 17:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:SNOW, and my standards for such lists. Technically, Springfield, Illinois could be considered a tourist destination (at least for me - it's on my bucket list - and other Lincoln Highway and Route 66 nerds), has over 116, 000 residents, and is the capital of that state. However, no building is especially tall or notable. In context, the list doesn't make sense to me. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 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 Snow keep. Consensus is that Givi passes WP:NPROF. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peyman Givi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Peyman Givi

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

This page does not reference a notable or exceptional individual in their field. It was very lively curated as an act of self-promotion. Testpilot22 (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Testpilot22

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously. Per Givi currently serves as a Distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science and the James T. McLeod Professor at University of Pittsburgh, and previously a Distinguished Professor of Aerospace Engineering at State University of New York along with being an Elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, American Physical Society and ASME. and Google Scholar passes WP:NPROF. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is in dreadful shape, but notability is unambiguous per WP:NPROF: the distinguished professor position meets C5, the citation records looks like a pass of C1, and fellowship in the AAAS meets C3 (as do likely the other fellowships, but I stopped after verifying the one). As usual, deletion is not cleanup. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable, though better sources are needed. Mccapra (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes NPROF. Natureium (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. At first I thought there might be a pass of WP:PROF#C2 but it turns out that the "engineer of the year" is only a local award. Nevertheless, he does clearly pass multiple other criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as others have said. WP:DINC -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death vomit records[edit]

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

Non-notable label GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Underground, long-defunct record label. I tagged it for notability. The article title is misspelled, no sources are cited, and even though two notable bands were signed to it (Impaled and Rotten Sound, whom are not mentioned in the article, but one of their albums were released by Deathvomit), Phobia (band) is currently a redirect to Relapse Records, though they are notable, since there are reliable sources about them and they have entries on multiple wikis, enwiki excluded. But this discussion is not about Phobia so I will talk about Deathvomit Records. This article reminds me more of a company database entry than an actual WP article. I haven't found anything about the label during a Google search, only the Wiki article. The rest of the results are related to an Indonesian death metal band called "Death Vomit" (they have their own Wiki article as well), and the word "records" is in connection with them. I have also found another label called "Puke & Vomit Records", and other stuff with the words separately ("death", "vomit" and "records"). But seriously, the only thing I found about Deathvomit Records is the Wiki article. Therefore, I am highly doubtful of its notability. This article has been sitting here in this state since 2007. But even if notability is proven by reliable, secondary sources, the article can't stay in a state like this (and it should be renamed). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - How this article has remained for so long beats me. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability; if it can be proved that it existed, then redirect to Necropolis Records Spiderone 18:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Love the name, but it's clearly WP:MILL and fails WP:NCORP. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Delete’’’ fails everything WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG Not a single citation, not even more than what - 2 sentences of content in total? Duncan079 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Wakefield[edit]

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

No information on reception and page mostly contains in-universe information that do not have much sourcing. Sources provided are mostly links to Amazon. lullabying (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep (negotiable)~~ - Nomination fails to give a reason for deletion. Per WP:NEXIST, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:ATD, "The article is poorly written", "The article is poorly sourced", or "The article is too much plot" are not reasons for deletion. In fact, these points are even listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Dark knight 2149 02:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: This article fails WP:GNG with no reliable sources to support the article, and the in-universe information counts as WP:FAN. Wikipedia is not a fan site so this information should have sources supported by secondary sources (i.e. literature critics). lullabying (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAN is a subjective essay (it even admits this in the second paragraph), and poorly sourced articles with too much trivial details can be notable (as covered in WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN). That being said, I was unable to find any sources in a Google search, so I'm striking my vote for now. Dark knight 2149 05:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, any thoughts for a "redirect" as a wikireader lookup? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Page is almost entirely WP:PLOTONLY with no notable information. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability doesn't apply to content within articles. Dark knight 2149 11:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reception section or like, no sources found that suggest it might be possible to write one. Fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NAVGTR Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous discussion was closed as delete in May. It still appears that WP:GNG is not met. There are many sources that talk about the individual nominations and winners, which appears to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL situation. The only exception I can find is this VentureBeat piece, which is already used in the article. Pinging previous discussion contributors @Axem Titanium, 69.157.252.96, Haleth, Daask, Woodroar, Sergecross73, SnowFire, Sjones23, Masem, Dissident93, Namcokid47, and Czar. IceWelder [✉] 10:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As one of two keep votes in the last discussion. I was persuaded that the VentureBeat article is not a usable source to indicate notability by this comment:
The VentureBeat article has this warning on it: "This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff." Bitmob was a former video game website that allowed anyone to post news/opinion articles and if they got popular, they would get editing support from the paid staff. As such, it is considered WP:UGC and therefore not reliable.
— Axem Titanium, 1 May 2020
I'm not sure why this wasn't deleted after the last discussion. Daask (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pretty obvious WP:G4 even if it started out as a different name._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this second page but I wasn't aware there was a previous one that had a discussion and was deleted. I don't understand why there wasn't a consensus when a Wikipedia page for these awards already exists for other languages like Spanish, with a different page to list only the awards. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAVGTR_Awards https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Categor%C3%ADas_de_los_NAVGTR_Awards I created this page because when I googled the awards this Spanish Wikipedia article was one of the first results and I thought there should be an English version as well.Wikiabitbetter (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- The notability policies in other language Wikipedia sites can vary from the one on the English Wikipedia. Just because one language site has an article on something doesn't necessarily mean the English one should have one too. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 15:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is correct. The various language Wikipedias operate under the same general premise, but also separately from one another, so they often have their own interpretations and approaches to doing things. The English Wikipedia is often viewed as the strictest when it comes to interpretation and enforcement. Even beyond that, one needs to keep in mind that just because an article or some content exists doesn’t mean it’s acceptable or okay. It might just be that you found something that shouldn’t exist that no ones noticed it yet. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per last discussion and its consensus. Nothings changed. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous AfD. There is no new significant coverage of the subject. Woodroar (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per last discussion. My opinion hasn't changed. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this is notable and the fact that there is an existing Spanish language article is

Irrelevant because it could be possible that that version of Wikipedia has different standards or that article doesn’t meet the standards either, slipped through the cracks and should be deleted there.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per last AFD. Awards tend to outwardly project more notability than they actually have because they're Fancy. But award mills are a thing, preying on this common misperception. We need a notability guideline specifically for awards, IMO. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous consensus and others. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:56, 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 speedy delete. Missvain (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wiley[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax. None of the references are verifiable (I don't think the Washington Gazette ever existed) and I can't find any refs. The book Chiefs of the Army Reserve Biographical Sketches of the United States Army Reserve's Senior Officers doesn't mention him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 08:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 08:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 08:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX. Mztourist (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Roosevelt wasn’t President in 1933, nobody gets appointed Chief of Reserve a year after joining the army and the original data on the image was altered by the article creator. And shot with a civil war pistol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs)
- Roosevelt was President starting March 4, 1933. But that doesn't make the rest of the article true. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as hoax Spiderone 10:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. I came across this article yesterday and was thoroughly impressed that a guy in his 40s still looked like a teenager! In my defense, I didn't read the rest of the article :) Lennart97 (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 - Blatant hoax. The article is believable if you skim read through it, but when you look more carefully it becomes clear this is just a hoax. As per Lennart97's comments on the picture as well, should the picture be deleted along with the article? Pahunkat (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahunkat: Yes, certainly; it was uploaded by the creator of the article, and reverse image search reveals it's a stock photo. The image is already considered for deletion I see, but that's purely based on its unclear copyright status; maybe that process could sped up now it's clear that it's a hoax. Lennart97 (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the author @ArialFont30549: - would you like to contribute to this discussion? Pahunkat (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the author created a Wikidata entry too, which should also be deleted. Can someone arrange that? Lennart97 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Bogus references and implausibly written. Kges1901 (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourced to apparently nonexistent sources such as World Newspaper Vault and National Web Archive. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably a SNOW closure already, but I'm throwing myself in regardless. Speedy Delete under G3. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. This is pretty damning. It lists all of the people of his supposed title, and he is not listed (in fact, 8 different people held that title during the time he supposedly did. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. The Marine Corps uniform was a giveaway for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:18, 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) 03:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Pacio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is a mixed martial art fighter. Subject fails WP:MMABIO for not having any fights in top tier promotion. Subject also fails GNG as info on his fights are purely routine cover. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. In addition, coverage appears to be just routine sports reporting and that is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still has no top tier fights. The page should be salted at most. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 23:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voltas House[edit]

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

Lacks evidence of this office building meeting WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability or importance, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Effectively unreferenced, as the two alleged sources don't mention 'Voltas House' at all, and the rest of the article doesn't even pretend to have sources. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources fail to establish any notability Spiderone 14:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Springs, Plumas County, California[edit]

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

Here we stumble into a confused mess, because according to both the topos and, apparently, Durham, this location was originally Twain, which is now located further west where older topos show "Halsted Flat"— unless they were two different Twains. (There is a Halsted campground just east of the present Twain.) At any rate, this spot now is the Feather River Hot Springs, a private resort. I can't find anything that explains the history of the spot beyond that, as hot springs are all over the county and I can't find a search that screens out enough of the others. If anyone can do better, by all means, go ahead, but at this point I'd have to say that the springs aren't notable. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find anything specifically about Hot Springs, Plumas County, California in GEOREF. the best that I could find is that a belt containing numerous hot springs accompanies the "Sierra fault" within Inyo to Plumas counties. Nothing significant about this locale in terms of geology. Paul H. (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Spiderone 15:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:WITHDRAW. (non-admin closure) Pulisi (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hacksmith[edit]

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

~~BLP of Youtuber without independent evidence of meeting WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator. Sorry for the drama. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. We tend to keep articles on BLPs who have large followings with basic coverage. I am a bit confused as to why the nominator thinks that there isn't enough "independent evidence of meeting WP:NBIO". These articles [23] [24] were published within the past 24 hours alone. A Google search reveals lots of coverage. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface, the sources I found seem independent. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is the second time myself as the page creator has interacted with this editor who tagged the article (MrsSnoozyTurtle). I'm not stating it but this could be seen as an attack on an editor as these edits 1 which I responded to here. Also please see her talk page history and examine it, I'm clearly not the only editor affected. Thanks, --Pulisi (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CBC article [25], Men's Health article [26], and NY Post [27] would be my top three sources cited in the article to contribute to WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. They all seem to be reliable indpendant sources. If that wasn't enough, 8mil. subscribers in a secondary source [28] clearly indicates meeting WP:ENT crit. 2. Samsmachado (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) The MensHealth and CBC articles give enough SIGCOV. Jumpytoo Talk 20:46, 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 redirect to Green Goblin. There is consensus that this article should not be kept, but no consensus about whether to merge it or where to. Redirection is a compromise that allows the editorial process to figure out whether anything should be merged from the history. Sandstein 08:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of the Green Goblin[edit]

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

This is a WP:CONTENTFORK of the main Green Goblin article that covers the same subject matter, while failing the WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT standard for having its own separate reception and real-world context. When the main article gets too long that is not an excuse to spin-out sections that don't have their own notability. Jontesta (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very much belongs on FANDOM and violates WP:GNG/WP:INDISCRIMINATE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green Goblin. Article was created in May of 2008‎. Four of the sections link to main articles over what is listed. Putting a redirect lets people access the history and if anything can be merged elsewhere it can later be done so. Dream Focus 03:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Did you actually check to see if the topic was notable or is this another "hop the bandwagon" nomination? So far, you haven't had a good track record in citing policy correctly in your rationales. Dark knight 2149 06:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK. The sources don't cover this as a separate topic from the main article and this doesn't meet the WP:GNG for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced content to Green Goblin. No need for a redirect, this is a term that is unlikely to be searched otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. The topic is an unneeded context fork that should be summarized in the main article rather than endlessly expanded. This content is pointless to merge due to it being easier to just write new content than try to trim down existing plot content. TTN (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Norman Osborn per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find enough worth merging from independent sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A summary of some notable versions of the character, that actually are covered in reliable, secondary sources, could potentially be added to the main Green Goblin article. However, as none of the information present here is taken from reliable sources, this article does not need to be preserved or merged to do so. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge any alternate information to Norman Osborn per @BOZ: and send any other version not talking about an alternate version of Norman Osborn to the Green Goblin page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Chef Thailand[edit]

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

This article in its present form does not satisfy television notability. It is little more than a table. It has only one reference. It has no lede section and so does not explain why it is notable or encyclopedic. An effort was made to have the article improved in draft space, but the article was moved back into article space with the non-helpful edit summary "Already deleted permission text and link". Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm very surprised that this passed AfC. If people aren't happy with deleting this, then maybe redirect to Iron Chef where it is already mentioned in enough detail. There don't seem to be any WP:RS to establish notability for this particular version of the show. Spiderone 09:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article did not pass AfC. The creator moved the page themselves, which they are entitled to do so. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify unless and until someone can be bothered to write a passable stub. Notability does not depend on the state of the "article in its present form", per WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST. That said, I'd say an article with zero prose is right next to CSD#A3 (no content, though the presence of the infobox and tables precludes the application of this CSD criterion), and certainly does not warrant keeping in its current form. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The program is quite notable itself. Here is google news search for the show [29] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This looks like a good choice here. The article is newer with an editor working on it. It potentially meets notability, but as the article stands it is not clear. Jeepday (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, as per the above rationales. Definitely not ready for mainspace. Pity the editor wasn't patient enough to work through the AfC process.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. A table... it's just a table. jp×g 05:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 17:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Martin (cricketer)[edit]

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

No evidence of subject receiving significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a little information on him here. (Still not enough coverage, but might be a helpful start for anyone possibly looking for more.) Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - are we here again? Why not just delete every article I created? Not having heard of someone isn't a reason to delete an article. To be honest I'd rather see all minor counties' cricketers deleted if we're going to come here again. Every article I've ever written runs to exactly the same template, and none of them have been updated in the last eleven years. Delete them all. Bobo . 10:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of Shropshire County Cricket Club List A players~~, which would have to be created~~. Playing one solitary List A game does not make a cricketer notable, especially when that appearance was for a minor county and their contribution was so insignificant. Seemingly nothing spectacular about any of their other minor counties appearances either. As such, it seems highly unlikely that there is enough substantial coverage to be found to warrant a standalone article. Fails all guidelines except NCRIC/CRIN, which does not enjoy community support (per recent discussions at NSPORT and elsewhere). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bare assertions based solely on CRIN carry little weight. Successive discussions have demonstrated clear consensus that the cricket guideline is overly inclusive; as such, at AFD it must be demonstrated that subjects pass more stringent guidelines (e.g. GNG, SPORTBASIC, NBIO) if they are to be kept (as standalone articles). I would like to see evidence of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, which should be outside of just the local paper, but there just isn't any. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:BASIC in that there is seemingly no in-depth coverage available Spiderone 14:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Forgive the double comment - once again this is not alone in being the only article which needs to be discussed if so. Why and how do people randomly come across these articles after 11 years? Still makes me suspicious. If this article needs looking at then still do - presumably, given the size of the category - dozens of others. Anyone prepared to do the legwork in improving the other articles or checking them out? None of you would bat an eyelid if these articles had infoboxes. *tumbleweed* Bobo . 15:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatantly non-notable. Many other similar articles from a period of barely-regulated article creation need to be nominated here, no doubt, but for the moment this can easily go. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not "barely regulated". Just regulated differently. Y'know. NPOV, N, and all that. Bobo . 12:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chris Martin (cricketer) - which is the article about the New Zealand international cricketer who is clearly the primary target for an article with this title. The Shropshire and Cornwall Minor Counties player is a little more complex to deal with - but whatever we do, this article seems a really obvious redirect case to me.

For the British chap, this article is about all I can find about him just now, although I intend to look more around the subject. I will create an article along the lines of List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players for Shropshire over the next week I imagine - it will take a little time to get all the information in it, but it's not that difficult to create the basic list. This would seem to sit well with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Dass, although I don't think this case is quite as clear cut as that one was. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if there were any Shropshire Star articles concerning him - I have a friend who might be able to search for more through the SS archives but I'm not in a fit state to bother with that right now. Bobo . 12:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they were I would have, as ever, no objection to the article being recreated.

Note List of Shropshire County Cricket Club List A players now exists - in a very simple form at present, but it's better than nothing. I'll get to expanding it per the Bedfordshire one asap. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played at List A level and played plenty of Minor Counties Championship matches for two teams. Passes WP:CRIN as far as I can tell. StickyWicket (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So does every other article which is coming to AfD. Doesn't take a child to work th... oh wait.... Bobo . 22:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Played in domestics so I think the article satisfies WP:CRIN CreativeNorth (talk) 15:33, 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) 01:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Relisted and no interest in the discussion for six whole days? I think this discussion has run its course...Defending the integrity of our project has gone from keenness to complete apathy. Once again, if the only difference between articles that go to AfD and articles that don't is a pretty little infobox and the word "references" instead of "external links", then consider doing that instead of sending to AfD... Bobo . 13:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would appear that some are still unaware (or choosing to ignore) that NSPORTS guidelines such as NCRIC only offer a (fairly low-bar) presumption of notability, while also making clear in SPORTBASIC that "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion..."; this obviously includes Cricinfo and/or CricketArchive profiles, which is all we have here. Arguments to keep this as a standalone article must go beyond bare assertions of meeting the SNG, and it seems extremely unlikely that the necessary substantial coverage exists in sources with a wider reach than the local paper. It could also be argued that, regardless of the classification of a match or competition, Minor Counties cricket is not the "highest international or domestic level" and so this cricketer actually fails NCRIC/CRIN. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumption" is a nonsense word used simply to flout basic inclusion criteria, that are so simple even a child could understand them. The word "presumption" is meaningless. If you want to try and alter the brightline criteria, as people have been begging for the last 16 years, but been unwilling to supply a solution we've been able to agree upon, you know where to suggest. Every sporting project has exactly the same inclusion criteria. Why is it only CRIN which is being questioned? Bobo . 15:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're prepared to go and look for further information to include about this, or any other, individual, go up to them and ask which hairdresser they go to and what their opinion is on Brexit... Job done. Any other information other than what is present in the article, or any other article, is superfluous. Bobo . 15:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sports/cricket guidelines are not "criteria for inclusion", they are essentially nothing more than predictors of the likelihood of meeting GNG – when challenged, GNG must be shown to be met. If it helps, there is an extensive discussion here regarding all SNGs. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're picking the tiniest of holes in the most inappropriate place. If you're willing to suggest new brightline inclusion criteria we can work to so that we can delete all these articles and start again, feel free. Too many people are willing to say "the bar is too low", but are unwilling to suggest how to fix it... As it happens, appearing in List A matches is sufficient for inclusion. We have already gone to great pains to point out what a "major competition" is... Bobo . 15:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it actually isn't sufficient. Successive AFDs have confirmed much more is needed than the odd appearance (just a few recent examples: Umar Draz, Adil Zarif, Tasawar Abbas, Shoaib Akram, Tariq Hafeez, Manu Bhardwaj, Ziauddin, etc. – all resulted in "delete" or "merge"), and many discussions outside AFD have also confirmed that the NCRIC bar is too low and unreliable in it's purpose of predicting GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant as per brightline criteria these articles are acceptable. People choosing to ignore brightline criteria isn't my decision. Once again, please stop picking holes in what I'm saying. Bobo . 16:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that he meets WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's strange to note that CreativeNorth's article creations which have been inexplicably deleted have been edited even less than mine have over the years! Goes to show how little the members of this project care for improving the project. I'm at last feeling comforted by that. Bobo . 10:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep votes appear to be applying a different standard to NCORP. The source analysis is compelling Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BetMGM[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL14. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH specifically. scope_creep^Talk 09:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For WP:NCORP, the company, by revenue, is the third largest of all major sports gaming platforms, only trailing FanDuel and DraftKings, both of which have their own pages. Furthermore, William Hill has a page as well in spite of being a smaller company on a US national scale than BetMGM. BetMGM a major player in its industry in spite of being a rather new organization only founded in 2018, hence why there is not as much information to be found in the crux of the article. When it comes to WP:ORGIND, I did happen to notice there were three sources I included that were purely press releases (sources #2, 13, and 14). I can update those to include third-party sources on the subjects instead in order to comply. Otherwise, I find this company to be relevant and widely advertised enough that it is worth keeping up on Wikipedia. Let me know if there is anything else needed to keep the article up. Otherwise, if anything, I find the subject matter at least worthy of merging with the MGM Resorts International and/or GVC Holdings pages. User:Mattr1198 11:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Company is a major player in a burgeoning industry. Plenty of sources to satisfy GNG, for example: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] Toohool (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial industry coverage [47][48], partnerships with sports leagues and teams [49][50][51] (and the other links from above) will pass the WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 07:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll go through the references soon. So far the sources that have been posted is trivial coverage, churnalism, routine announcements, info related press-releases and other assorted junk that doesn't pass WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 09:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CNG no longer applies to these types of article per consensus at WP:N it seems, it is WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets examine the sources:

* [52] Dependent. Non-RS. Fails WP:SIRS

* [53] Press-release. Fails WP:SPIP and WP:SIRS. Non-RS.

* [54] Another press-release. Non-RS.

* MGM-GVC’s US joint venture named Roar Digital 2-minute read. Routine announcement of partnership. “I am delighted to appoint Matt to the team,” said Greenblatt, who was appointed in October Interview style article. Fails WP:ORGIND.

* [55] Report on a press-conferences. Dependent source. Fails WP:SIRS.

* [56] Interview style report with direct quotes. Fails WP:ORGIND.

* [57] We are excited to enter into this historic partnership with MLB," MGM Resorts chairman and CEO Jim Murren added in the release From a press-release. Fails WP:SPIP. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND.

* [58] Major League Soccer is proud to partner with MGM Resorts to bring existing and new fans close to our sport in innovative and immersive ways,” said MLS Commissioner Don Garber in a statement Another press-release. WP:SPIP. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND

* [59] Routine announcement of partnership. his is an exciting partnership for the BetMGM brand and Roar Digital, helping us reach the widest possible audience of engaged sports fans in the US,” said Roar Digital CEO Adam Greenblatt in the release Another press-release. Fails WP:SPIP. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND.

* [60] Another press-release.

* [61] Another press-release.

* [62] Routine announcement of partnership. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

References 13, 14, 15, 16 are routine announcements of partnership deals. All of them fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Ref 16 fails WP:ORGIND. Looking at the references that have been presented in here:

[63]
[64] BetMGM chief revenue officer Matt Prevost said in a statement. “We’re eager to launch BetMGM’s gaming offering in Pennsylvania and I can’t think of a better way to kick off our entry into the state than through this monumental partnership. Fails WP:ORGIND
[65] Routine annoucment of a partnership,
[66] Partnership
[67] Partnership.
[68] Partnership. Routine announcement.
[69] Routine announcement.Partnership

[70] Partnership. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

[71] Partnership. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
[72] Partnership. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Partnership report. This partnership marks an important moment for BetMGM in the growing U.S. sports betting sector,” MGM Chairman and CEO Jim Murren said in a statement. This is actually from a press-release. Duplicated above.

[73] As we think about the sports market in Colorado, the first team we think of is the Broncos," BetMGM chief marketing officer Matt Prevost said in a phone interview. "Their heritage and success on and off the field occupies a unique place in the Colorado market. Fails WP:ORGIND.

[74] Product launch announcement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance

[75] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:SPIP. according to a Tuesday news release

[76] (These investments) demonstrates our continued commitment to positioning BetMGM as a leader in sports betting and iGaming,” Hornbuckle said during the call. “We believe BetMGM will allow us to more frequently engage with our guests and drive deeper loyalty to the MGM brand Product launch. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as an interview style article.

[77] We know everyone is eager to get out of their homes and add some fun into their calendars,” said David Tsai, president of MGM Resorts’ Midwest Group. “We are committed to raising the bar in delivering unique and entertaining experiences.” Fails WP:ORGIND.

[78] All of us at MGM Resorts are proud to welcome the Raiders and the NFL to Las Vegas,” said MGM Resorts CEO and president Bill Hornbuckle. “We look forward to providing Raiders fans a world-class sports betting and entertainment experience, both in our BetMGM Sportsbooks and digitally, through the BetMGM mobile app Fails WP:ORGIND. Another routine interview style article.

[79] Routine announcement of partnership

The references offered in the article are mostly press-releases. More than 80%. The ones offered here as proof of notability clearly indicate company operations in forming partnerships and joint ventures in a whole of sports companies that are looking to provide sport betting on their premises. Not a single one of them proves that the company is notable. They are junk. They are not coverage. They fail WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14 as paid for article for a company that has a large advertising account. It is a complete crock. scope_creep^Talk 14:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom amd thanks for the detailed breakdown of the sources. We can’t have articles based on press releases and churnalism crap like this. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Scopecreep's excellent analysis of the sourcing. Draftify might be an option, to allow someone to find good solid sources which go in-depth about the company, but I couldn't, due to all the churnalism.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is unreasonable to dismiss news reports from major news outlets like the BBC and Financial Times as routine. They are reported in such sources because the company is considered significant by major news sources, it therefore satisfies GNG. Hzh (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:NCORP were using as the notability policy here, as it is applicable to company articles, per consensus. scope_creep^Talk 19:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially nonsense and a misinterpretation of NCORP. The FT article [80] for example is a quite detailed article, hardly what you called a routine announcement, but I'm sure you'd picked a quote and claimed that it not independent, ignoring that fact that articles do need to provide quote in their article even with independent analysis. There are plenty of other sources like that, for example [81]. The deletion rationale is entirely spurious. Hzh (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the FT article to comment on that in particular, but the Yahoo article you mention in your comment is bylined to Zacks Equity Research, which is an investment advice company. That whole article is basically a disguised ad - right under the graph there's a whole paragraph about how Zacks recommends holding the stock. I wouldn't exactly call that independent. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is unreasonable to accuse news site of running disguised ad on companies they write on without clear evidence, Whatever you may think, there are plenty of articles on various aspects of the company, for example articles that covers its controversies - [82][83] and more. The deletion rationale basically shows a failure of BEFORE. Hzh (talk)

The evidence is clear, you've just decided to ignore everything I wrote. The byline is not to a staff writer at Yahoo Movies. It's to an investment advice company, Zacks Equity Research. So no, a news site didn't write about BetMGM, a news site reprinted a piece by an investment advice company, Zacks Equity Research. The content, written by Zacks, literally contains a paragraph stating that Zacks recommends that people buy BetMGM. That is not independent, that is promotional. It is ad copy pretending very hard to be journalism. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You see what you want to see, such argument is pointless. In any case, there are plenty of articles on the company, the assessment for notability is on the sources that are out there, so far I haven't seen a good reason for deletion, the so-called analysis of the sources is dubious to say the least, for example the FT is certainly not routine announcement when it includes research analysis not found in routine announcement, and I only look at a few of those given, indicating that blithe dismissal of the sources is faulty. Also the number of sources I can see out there on the company renders such exercise useless, as I said, no BEFORE. Hzh (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You see what you want to see - it is absolutely rich for you to be accusing me of this considering your inability acknowledge anything I wrote. Or do you actually that think Zacks Equity Research is a name for a human writer at Yahoo Movies? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Scope_creep's bunker buster source analysis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; an extremely long list of links is not the same as a coherent rationale. There are a couple actual arguments against the credibility of sources, surrounded by Calling coverage "routine" doesn't make sense for, say, the BBC article -- is it "routine" because the BBC routinely covers businesses? Is it "routine" because the BBC routinely writes articles about joint ventures? Can BBC articles be used to establish notability for anything at all, since they're known to "routinely" write articles about stuff? Are they an unreliable source? If so, we should have a discussion about that. The idea that an article loses its credibility the second it mentions a quote from the subject seems, at a minimum, quite heterodox. jp×g 06:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fabric Ventures[edit]

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

Coverage of this firm consists of this mention in a Reuters piece on bitcoin VCs and then some passing mentions in press releases. Not sufficient for WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me understand what further sources are typically required? There are mentions of Fabric Ventures in Bloomberg, Forbes, Wayra etc. Are there specific details that need to be verified? The level of detail is similar to other VC firms I have come across. Emersoi (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The "mentions" in Bloomberg, Forbes, etc, all rely on company announcements or PR and fail ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 10:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The provided sources are mostly not good. The Forbes source is not even about them. Google news actually brings up many more mentions of the company, but the seem to be in the form of passing mentions. In this currently format it is non-notable, but should someone find more better sources, perhaps it can be reconsidered. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Hawkman enemies. Missvain (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monocle (character)[edit]

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

PRODed by User:TTN as "Fails WP:GNG.", deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no helpful rationale. I concur this fails GNG and like. Coverage in accessible sources (confirmed by my BEFORE) is in passing only, there is no in-depth treatment that goes beyond plot, no analysis of significance, no reception, etc. At best, this could be redirected to the List of Hawkman enemies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectto List of Hawkman enemies. Unless notability is proven. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hawkman enemies. Not finding sources for passing GNG, but redirecting is the best option. Rhino131 (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hawkman enemies. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to warrant a standalone article. Clearly fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hawkman enemies - Honestly, the sources I've found while doing searches are so scant that outright Deletion would be justified, but since that list exists, then I suppose Redirecting would be a valid WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hawkman enemies - I was able to find no indication of notability after performing a source check. Dark knight 2149 02:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- in future, it's probably better to just redirect this sort of thing right away rather than going through the whole prod-deprod song and dance first. Reyk _YO! 22:26, 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. Missvain (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stovepipe Wells, California[edit]

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

This is apparently the oldest of several "towns" in Inyo County which are and apparently always were hotels/resorts/etc. Gudde explains the origin of the name but doesn't describe the place at all; a Fodors guide gives a bit more detail, but nothing contradicts what the oldest topos I could find (admittedly not all that old) say: it's the Stovepipe Wells Hotel. It's unclear why later maps deviate from this, but the name of the establishment hasn't changed. I see no sign it was ever a town per se, and I don't see signs that it is especially notable as a hotel. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a short summary to California Historical Landmarks in Inyo County. State-level listing, especially as only a fairly minor site, seems to be below WP:GEOFEAT #1, which references national level. Doesn't seem to have been anything that would pass WP:GEOLAND, but since it does have a state-level historical listing, a merge to the list would be an acceptable WP:ATD, in my opinion. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Despite the fact that it has no post office, Stovepipe wells should be probably kept because it has non-trivial coverage: [84], [85]. There are also many other references, this is less trivial: [86], there are more and more trivial references. Looking at GBooks, the National Park Service has a paper about it, there are many references in travel guides.

To me, there is an interesting question concerning the notability of places like this where there is a gas station or small business surrounded by miles of non-notable desert. If this location was in a beach resort community, it would not be notable. What is notable about it is that there is nothing of note nearby. The west is full of places like this, see Majors Place, Nevada and Oasis, Nevada (a CDP!). Panamint Springs, California might also fall in to this category. Please don't let my Weak Keep block consensus about merging or deleting. Cxbrx (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GEOLAND as a historical populated place. KylieTastic (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Places of interest in the Death Valley area. A remote motel is not a populated place that has automatic notability. The National Park Service source above shows that this region certainly deserves discussion with respect to the national park it lies within, but it is certainly not a town/community any more than other ranger stations and campsites with facilities. Reywas92^Talk 01:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOLAND Jeepday (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GEOLAND as a historical populated place. I came here to add more historical data! Telecine Guy (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Add California Historical Landmarks, keep is done! The Merge, lacked this info. Telecine Guy (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NGEO, this article reflects that WP is a gazetteer. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Cxbrx and because it does actually pass GEOLAND Spiderone 10:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JGHowes ^talk 17:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BandLab Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 23:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the company has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and thus meets the criteria of WP:GNG. The company is known for its multiple notable brands, and also has coverage itself. WP:DEL4 doesn't apply - the content isn't spam or advertising - all the information comes from independent third party sources. WP:DEL14 is also not met since by meeting WP:GNG, the subject is suitable for the encyclopedia. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Timtempton. This company has recieved notable coverage such the BBC, Variety, Tech in Asia, TechCrunch, and Fortune. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when does WP:GNG apply when the consensus seems to be that WP:NCORP is more applicable in these instances. And I see somebody is still pushing Techcrunch likes its gold instead of lead. scope_creep^Talk 08:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, obviously TechCrunch is not necessarily the best source in determining notabilty, however given that it is accompanied by a few other sources including the BBC,Variety, the Financial Times and other sources, I think it can be used to determine notablity. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you should start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard related to TechCrunch. Be prepared to discuss the thousands of articles that use it for sourcing. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are good and it owns many notable brands.--Blurz (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references are junk. Lets quickly look at them:

* [87] "We've seen a 300% rise in monthly online sales at our South East Asia music instrument retailer, Swee Lee," he said. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS

* [88] A smiling picture of Kuok Meng Ru. Fails [[WP:SIRS]. Dependent source.

* [89] Excerpts from the interview: An interview style press-release.

* [90] Paywalled.

* [91] Same content as reference above. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as routine announcement.

* [92] “We’re not disclosing dollar amounts for the deal. This was a privately funded deal – we worked to find a fair price that both parties were happy with,” says a BandLab spokesperson Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS

* [93] To me, 225 Parsons is one of the most significant establishments in the history of modern music,” said Meng Ru Kuok, CEO and co-founder of BandLab Another fail on WP:ORGIND.

* [94] Today, it was BandLab’s turn to stir the pot, with a short announcement regarding its plans to reboot two classic guitar brands: Harmony and Teisco Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a routine announcement of partnership.

I think that is about half. There is no point of doing anymore as assuming WP:AGF they would be all the same. They fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS as well as WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14 and WP:NOTDIR. It is small private company and there is no need for it to be on Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 01:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems well sourced enough Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Omniscientmoose42: Can you not read the references. That is whole point, is that it is not well sourced. You have done only 28 Afd's. I would sincerely suggest that you go an read the notability criteria, particularly WP:NCORP, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV, WP:AUD and all the rest. Hopefully that will help in future decisions. scope_creep^Talk 15:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON is unfair to the other participants and creates an unhealthy environment. I've done 647 AfDs, and voted keep also. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You voted keep because you wrote the article, I would have done the same. It is natural. The editor voted keep based on something that is not based on evidence. That is the primary difference. scope_creep^Talk 08:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Listen, there are articles on wikipedia that are a lot worse than this one that survive AfD. Admittedly, this company is probably not the most notable; however, I think the fact that you merely can't base this AfD off WP:GNG makes your argument too weak in my opinion. Your statements about a BBC source and the Fortune source do not conform to policy, could you please justify how multiple non-trivial mentions of the company would make this elgible for deletion? Moreover, you have not analyized all of the sources, including the Variety source. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @P,TO 19104: Possibly. WP:NCORP now applies to companies now per consensus. I hope your not planning on going against consensus are you? When somebody is standing in his teeshirt smiling and direct quoting, it doesn't a leap of imagination to know it is an interview style article. Fortune, while different and paywalled, is all the name. It is a routine announcement of sale, which is trivial coverage. The variety ref is also interview style article, Said CEO Jay Penske in announcing the news: “In the 12 months since PMC’s initial investment into this incredible team and legendary brand, the need to consolidate the Rolling Stone business has become abundantly clear... The whole thing is a press-release, or are you going to tell me its not, particularly since entertainment paper like variety has been savaged by Facebook and Google and are now taking the advertising dollar as heavily as everybody else, to survive. They always did. scope_creep^Talk 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A careful reading of WP:NCORP tells us that "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." We can all see that in this article, there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If NCORP is the gold standard, this should be a clear keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm going to have to say this definitely appears to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, there are literally thousands of articles which talk about this company, at varying depth levels (and of course many are press-release types). In the current sourcing, the Fortune piece and Techcrunch are solid. While I agree with Scopecreep that some articles are routine announcements, Fortune rarely participates in that type of mill article. Searching turns up other articles which go beyond the simple announcement or brief mention type, Musicweek, BBC, their purchase of Rolling Stone was also covered in-depth in The Wall Street Journal. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised. The wall street journal fails WP:ORGIND, “Our strength is local knowledge,” Meng Ru Kuok said in an interview. “Rolling Stone is pushing digital, and we’re excited to push the physical experiences around the brand.” Mr. Kuok said he views the partnership as a venture that will extend for many years. “We aren’t coming in as a traditional investor with a short-term plan,” he said. The Techcrunch references states:“I am very pleased that Chew will now be supported by the BandLab team. For the past two years I’ve been closely watching the growth and development of this great platform and community of DJs,” said Meng Ru Kuok, BandLab CEO and co-founder, in a statement. So it may be full fail of Orgind, but it certainly a dependent source. scope_creep^Talk

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neverwinter Campaign Setting. Or put a dab in. Whatever seems best Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neverwinter[edit]

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

Largely WP:INUNIVERSE or sourced from primary sources, fails WP:GNG. This is Wikia material that lacks the secondary notability for a standalone article. Note that this is about the city and not the actually notable game series, Neverwinter Nights. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given how much has been set here I think notability is easily satisfied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST unless some are actually demonstrated._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've started to find and add in sources. I'll continue to do so over the next few days; today is a holiday so I don't have a lot of time right now. Neverwinter is the fictional hub of a bunch of media (videos games, tabletop, novels, etc) and the publication history section can show the transmedia connections between these products. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Disambiguate - At the very least, I think a Disambiguation page needs to be made, as there are at least three distinct articles on things simply called "Neverwinter" - the city that this AFD is about, the MMORPG, and the novel. My feelings are that the content on the fictional city itself should be Merged, likely to Faerûn, as there is very little in reliable, secondary sources that discusses the city itself outside of plot. The issue is that, due to the various, clearly notable games that were named for the city and featured it as a location, it appears as though there are more viable sources than there actually are. However, in the end, the actual reliable, secondary sources, including the ones being used in this article, are actually discussing the notable games (the various incarnations of Neverwinter Nights, or the MMO), and not the fictional location itself in depth. I expect any decision made at this AFD to be somewhat contentious, though, due to these issues. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above and per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, although I feel that Neverwinter (disambiguation) would be wortwhile. BOZ (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and made the aforementioned disambiguation page, since that seemed to make sense. BOZ (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Disambiguate for all the reasons listed above. I think the disambiguation is itself and excellent idea. Timmccloud (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Disambiguate per Timmccloud. Significant coverage exists. Individual sources which do not provide substantial coverage by themselves could be combined in prose to paint a broader picture, and sourcing in the article provides that. Comments and reception about the location of Neverwinter itself exist and could be extracted from numerous game reviews for both NWN1 and NWN2, which have been collated in the respective articles for both subject topics. The only real issue I can see with the article is that the overtly in-universe tone should be adjusted, and of course there's room for improvement in the reception section. Haleth (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or disambiguate to Neverwinter Campaign Setting, Neverwinter (novel), or Neverwinter (video game). This is purely primary or unsourced information that does not meet the WP:GNG separate from the articles covering the fiction itself. Jontesta (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would say the city of Neverwinter as a fictional location and setting is the broader topic, whereas the article Neverwinter Campaign Setting which I presume you consider to be a topic which warrants a standalone article only refers to the 4E supplemental book. If consensus is inclined to merge, contents from both articles could be merged into a new article to demonstrate the notability of Neverwinter as a notable setting for multiple fictional works. Haleth (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or disambuate. This is a well know location due to popularity of setting, but the article is pure fancruft right now, the only section that has some promise is history/origins but it sourced to low quality site [95] (that does not seem independent). There is next to nothing worth merging here (WP:ALLPLOT), so for now I am leaning to redirect or disambiguate, but do ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or rewrite as disambiguation: there really is nothing here that passes the standard at WP:NOT and nothing to merge. The games that use this setting already say it all, and a short disambiguation page would work. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or disambiguate - In universe or mostly primarily sourced is not relevant to deletion, per WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, and WP:ARTN. Others above have begun to better cite the article, which is the legitimate solution to those concerns. As someone unfamiliar with the topic, I find the arguments in favour of deletion to be thoroughly unconvincing, treading the edges of WP:RUBBISH and WP:WEDONTNEEDIT (which confuse snobbery for policy). I'm willing to change my mind if someone presents a better argument for it not passing WP:GNG. Dark knight 2149 00:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The core fictional topic seems to lack anything that can be called significant coverage. The above idea about cherry picking minor quotes from reviews is not how to build an article. We need significant commentary to be the focal point of the article. The rearranging idea is definitely good regardless of how this goes. TTN (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - Disambiguation is an ok idea too but the real issue is there are three different series called Neverwinter Nights which probably needs its own disambiguation. The sources here are off topic but would add some publication history to the Faerun article that doesn't have yet. Archrogue (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as Rorshacma points out, the decent sourcing in this piece is about the notable games, not the fictional city, which this article is about. The fictional city does not have enough in-depth sourcing from reliable, independent sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haleth. I would like to help out Sariel Xilo in searching and adding those separated sources, but with so many articles being nominated for deletion in a short period, that would require more time. Daranios (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basic googling/google scholar show that WP:NEXIST. A little bit of before goes a long way. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you finding by Googling that actually discuss the city itself in depth? As already discussed in length before, simply googling gives plenty of results on the notable games that share a title, such as Neverwinter Nights, which already have articles. Not on the actual fictional city itself. Rorshacma (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neverwinter Campaign Setting, all found sourcing is about the game, not the fictional setting. As a result, it fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable/disambiguate I'm not finding any non-in-universe coverage of this topic, but a dab page would be helpful for other topics called "Neverwinter". (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kira McLean[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Potentially meets NACTOR however fails GNG - I've found these 2 reviews however that's it, IMHO TOOSOON. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source, and one review is not going to get someone over GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 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) 01:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leema Dhar[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. I opened AfD and not CSD because books published are real and available on various portals. However there is no significant coverage of the author in any reliable sources. ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChunnuBhai, as a procedural question, what has changed since the first AFD when it was overwhelmingly kept? Primefac (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of note given in the article to prove notability. We need more reliable sources or a list of awards she's won. Oaktree b (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - The author is very popular and got a very good amount of coverage in Indian top print and electronic media like TIMES OF INDIA, HINDUSTAN TIMES, PIONEER, AMAR UJALA, DAINIK JAGRAN. HINDUSTAN, ABP NEWS, ZEE NEWS, NEWS NATION, ETV NEWS, STAR TV & SAHARA (National), APN NEWS, SAMACHAR PLUS, K TV, etc. print media, news channel, All India Radio, BIG FM 92.7 and 93.5 RED FM gave her exclusive coverage on her success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimisha singhania (talk • contribs) 04:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. - The author had received several awards like She is the recipient of Nari Samman in the field of art/Literature (2016) by the U.P. State Government.She is the recipient of Women Achiever Award (2013) by Amar Ujala-Rupayan with the prize money of Rs.50, 000/- and Bioved Women Achiever Award (2014)^[1]She became the “News Maker of 2012” & 2015 by Hindustan (Hindi Daily).Popular National TV Channel ZEE TV (Zindagi) honoured her 24th February 2015.She had recently added another feather in her cap when India’s highest literary organization run by the Central Government of India SAHITYA AKADEMI included her biography in the latest edition of WHO’S WHO OF INDIAN WRITERS(2015) http://sahitya-akademi.gov.in/sahitya-akademi/SASearchSystem/sauser/writerinfo.jsp?wrids=367 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom makija (talk • contribs) 04:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. -Author Leema Dhar a well-known name in Indian English literature. She one of the top five Indian promising author^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piku mob (talk • contribs) 05:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Read a wide range of coverage of her online and offline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hikkaku (talk • contribs) 05:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nimisha singhania all of them have been blocked for socking.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very good coverage I got on this author
- http://www.anandabazar.com/national/lima-s-creations-drawing-attention-through-out-the-country-dgtl-1.402376
- http://epaper.telegraphindia.com/details/186444-4445886.html
- http://www.sweetsharing.com/sweet-talks-with-leema-dhar/
- http://www.ucanindia.in/news/solidarity-movement-launches-new-national-youth-magazine/28161/daily*http://www.voicesnet.com/allpoemsoneauthor.aspx?memberid=1136910010*http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-910665*http://mattersindia.com/2015/03/new-publication-for-youth-launched/
- http://www.amazon.com/Leema-Dhar/e/B00JEM0FG4/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1458660247&sr=8-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimisha singhania (talk • contribs) 05:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck by Primefac (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator has not indicated that anything has changed since the overwhelming keep at the original AFD, so I find no reason to move away from that consensus. Primefac (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OP is not offering anything substantial to over turn TWO Previous AFD's Jeepday (talk) 19:14, 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 redirect to Northern Rail#Services. Consensus is that the topic of this article is not independently notable, however, it is mentioned at the other article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 06:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Electrics[edit]

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

After doing a WP:BEFORE search, there is only one independent (reliability unknown) source that talks about the Northern Electrics brand in detail, and so I believe the article does not meet GNG and should be deleted. It also appears to claim the brand is still ongoing, but it has not since 2016 when the Arriva Rail North franchise took over. SK2242 (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been previously nominated twice:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Electrics (Northern Rail)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Electrics (Northern Rail) (2nd nomination). SK2242 (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is definitely a borderline article in terms of WP:GNG, but there's also the Northern Electrics are go! article in Rail magazine. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 19:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northern Rail. As per nom there is no sources that confirms the brand is still going, it was only a sub brand of NR, used to promote new electric services. Don't believe it was used after the ARN takeover. Nightfury 20:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gungo001 (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Northern Rail as proposed by Nightfury, seems the best choice. My google did not find anything after a couple of breif mentions in 2015. Jeepday (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two Rivers, California[edit]

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

Now the location of the Two Rivers Soccer Camp, whose website says, "In 1974, the Schwendinger family purchased a piece of property that was formerly an exclusive retreat for an affluent family.". I am unable to verify this elsewhere, as searching produces name drops as a location and dozens of false hits, even if you specify Plumas County, but old enough topos show an enclave in the forest with a row of buildings, which could be a line of cabins. At any rate, I could find no testimony to this as a town. Mangoe (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in article. My quick search found results supporting the OPs claims. Jeepday (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; blatant failure of all applicable guidelines Spiderone 11:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked but didn't find anything to warrant a Keep.--TerrellTrevon (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onuegbu E. Achalu[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows the subject passes WP:BIO or that he is "one of the leading authorities on drug use in Nigerian student populations". SL93 (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 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) 00:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation record not good enough for WP:PROF. Searching mostly found Wikipedia mirrors, and not any of the kinds of sources that could be used for WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked and am not finding anything to support notability. Jeepday (talk) 18:56, 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.