< December 05	December 07 >

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandrine Erdely-Sayo[edit]

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

I removed some namedropping and uncited material from this page, but I realized there are no significant reliable sources at all. Everything is either from her web site or from promotional interviews where she says what she wants to .This article was added in 2006, by an editor who has contributed nothing else. It illustrates the standards we had at the time; it shows the need for WP:AFC, for it wouldn't have gotten past AfC today. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. not enough reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked and not finding notabilityJeepday (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lacking WP:SIGCOV. The two sources do not show notability generally nor as a musician. Assuming everything is true, she's a private school music teacher, which is confirmed by social media apps and Internet searches. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines. Habiliment (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 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 merge to Selena: The Series. Sandstein 09:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selena: The Series Soundtrack[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:NALBUM. Unsourced and google searches not finding any WP:significant coverage in WP:reliable sources noq (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see enough coverage on this from third-party, reliable sources to be considered significant. The information in the article is also incorrect, as none of the singles in the infobox were released to support this particular album (which is obvious from their release dates). I could maybe see an argument for a redirect, but I do not see this being a strong search term as you would already be typing in Selena: The Series anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to merge to Selena: The Series per the discussion below. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Selena: The Series. The album has only been released this week, so it's possible that sources may appear over the next week or two, but at the moment it looks like this article will never have anything more than a track listing and possibly some future chart position on the Billboard Top Latin Albums chart – this information could easily be added to Selena: The Series as a separate "Music" section without making the article too long. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Selena: The Series: All I can find about the soundtrack are the articles from Film Music Reporter and Pop Sugar, the latter which is copy pasted by other websites. Not notable enough to have a standalone article for now. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:14, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Limketkai Office Building[edit]

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

The article is about the office building, not the hotel or other similarly named entities. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. It has mentions about articles regarding tenants, but nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. This is a nice, normal, building, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 22:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. It is a "nice, normal, building, not an encyclopedic topic." Otr500 (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not find anything that makes this building notable. Jeepday (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable office building that fails GNG Spiderone 18:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree with the nom's rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 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. Sandstein 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Cairns[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite the unanimous keep previously, I am still not seeing any evidence that there are multiple reliable sources covering this topic in depth. I also don't see how this list meets any of the purposes outlined at WP:LISTPURP. It takes all of its information from a user-generated database and not one of the buildings is tall or notable! It completely fails any criteria for a stand-alone list on tall buildings.

Since the previous AfD, there has been a growing consensus that these types of lists do need to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and do need to pass WP:LISTN, some examples are below but this is not exhaustive:

And many, many more. As with those above, 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 (not even one notable building).
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscraperpage and Emporis do not constitute significant coverage. There is some coverage here, here and here but not enough to justify this article.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Cairns' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft. 63m is not tall.
The whole article is currently a violation of WP:NOTMIRROR in that it's just a copy and paste from Emporis.
The city is not the largest in Queensland nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building being taller than 35m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in Brisbane so why are we doing it here? Spiderone 22:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All non-notable buildings, few of which can be considered tall. Reywas92^Talk 01:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG, there is not WP:SIGCOV discussing the subject directly and indepth or WP:LISTN, WP:RS do not discuss this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the List does not meet the purposes of WP:CLN, non of the list elements are notable. // Timothy :: talk 01:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - SpiderOne:
- why are you targeting so many Australian articles? Why not help contribute to them instead of nominating everything for deletion?
- Emporis has been considered a reliable source on countless other AfDs about buildings so I don't see why you can treat it differently here. You can't just cite other AfDs and say that it applies.
- Nor can you say it's not a reliable source then say at the same time it violates NOTMIRROR for having the same information as Emporis. You can't have it both ways.
- For my part, these lists are what makes Wikipedia interesting and are a clear example of WP:NOTPAPER. Where there are sources (which there are here), the list is notable. Deus et lex (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved many Australian articles recently, for example Bronwyn Nutley, Sammie Wood, Cian Maciejewski, two of which were just about to be deleted. Emporis is not a reliable source no matter how you slice it. It is a website built by its user community. It appears to be moderated but anyone can essentially create an account and add buildings to it. If we argue that Emporis is a reliable source, then I will apply NOTMIRROR. That was why I put that point in. Either way, an article that's copied and pasted from Emporis has issues. Serious ones. If WP:NOTPAPER is the only policy that we can cite for keeping this article then I'm not convinced as we could use NOTPAPER to justify an article on my great aunt's cat... Spiderone 09:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I don't know if this is a useful topic. Alex-h (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is much more than a mirror to Emporis the two are not the same. There is the current list and a proposed section in the article. There is several sources so Cairns buildings have some notability. Just because Cairns is not the state capital it is a very important tourism centre being ranked number 3 in Australia. I think its better to improve articles that need it than just the easy option to delete them. As we try to enhance Wikipedia as a learning tool going forward.CHCBOY (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you share some of these several sources that show notability? Spiderone 19:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several newer taller buildings that have gone up in the last year along with several more currently under construction. In addition there are buildings with historical significance, although not tall, so perhaps the page should be on the buildings in general with a section on the highest. Comparisons to Brisbane are not a valid argument. Given the recent discussion it appears there is some interest in the page.

15:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.132.104.53 (talk) — 1.132.104.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

None of these newer buildings under construction are tall or notable either. Please can you link me to some reliable sources with in-depth coverage on these buildings of historical significance? Spiderone 09:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - as the lost is currently designed, this fails my standards. However, an article could in theory be constructed that describes the recent building boom in Cairns. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:46, 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 speedy redirect to Type VII submarine#Type VIIC/41. Withdrawn in favor of redirect discussed below. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm _Bacon 23:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

German submarine U-1012[edit]

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

I am personally unconvinced that there is anything notable here. This was a submarine that was started, the incomplete hulk was bombed, and the Nazis decided to just scrap the project. All that's in the article is just that much, and a recap of the design specifications of the class. There's just not enough to have a stand-alone article on this subject, or to meet WP:GNG. Normally, military ships are considered to be notable, but this seems to be an exception to me, given the circumstances. At most, this can be a sentence or two in the submarine class article. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Type VIIC/41#Type VIIC/41. As the nominator notes completed/commissioned ships are by very long established consensus considered notable. However ships that were never completed are not considered such - indeed as WP:SHIPS/AFD demonstrates the standard, even for battleships, is to merge or redirect as appropriate. Indeed if @Hog Farm: would be willing to withdraw this nomination I would be happy to go ahead and WP:BOLDly redirect this to the class page accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bushranger - Or would List of U-boats never deployed be a better target? I'm fine to withdraw as soon as the best target is determined. There are several other bluelinks at the list page that should probably also be redirected. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hog Farm While I can't speak definitively on this, looking at that list makes me squint just a little and wonder just how encyclopedic it is (but that's a much bigger discussion for another time another place). The de facto consensus standard for unbuilt ships is merge/redirect to the class, so (with two plausible redirect targets in question) it would probably be best to do that - that way the greenlink/redirect on the list page will also point to the class page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 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. Sandstein 09:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Egechukwu Obetta[edit]

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

COI/Possible covert UPE resumé looking article of a lawyer and politician who fails to satisfy both WP:NPOL & WP:GNG as subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. A before search turns up nothing concrete to solidify any notability claims made in the article. Celestina007 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Below is a source assessment of the three current sources used in the article. Celestina007 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sunnewsonline.com/why-i-pulled-out-of-nnamdi-kanus-case-obetta-counsel-to-ipob-leader/	It is an interview hence it’s not independent of the subject & has no overall value to GNG that requires a source to be independent of a subject		The interview mostly discusses an incident he was involved in and not he himself.	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/08/ekweremadus-attack-i-feel-guilty-obetta-ipob-ex-lawyer/			The piece literally is of no value whatsoever to WP:NPOL or WP:GNG as it literally doesn’t discuss him, rather it discusses an incident. Subject of article is no way discussed with in-depth significant coverage as required by GNG.	✘ No
[http://saharareporters.com/2017/10/06/nnamdi-kanu%E2%80%99s-former-lawyer-says-ipob-played-nigeria-govt-hands-lauds-seast-governors		No editorial oversight for this particular piece	Like the two other sources, it focuses on incidences and the subject of the article in itself so overall all sources are of no value to GNG.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Delete per analysis of WP:SIGCOV by the nom, and as lacking completely any factor for my standards of notability of lawyers. Bearian (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and their analysis. Not notable enough to warrant their own article. Habiliment (talk) 11:15, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Luc Paquette[edit]

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable only as a political organizer. This is not an "inherently" notable role under WP:NPOL, so getting a person into Wikipedia for this requires showing that they clear WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but other than one news article announcing his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as press releases self-published by his own party and a deadlinked directory entry. As usual, he isn't automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to offer technical verification that he existed: he would need to show real reliable source coverage about his work in the role, demonstrating specific, significant and substantive accomplishments, to warrant a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding anything to meet notabilityJeepday (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC) for this person.[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:MILL. This was a provincial-level political operative. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of coverage in RS. Clearly does not meet notability guidelines. Habiliment (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elnik Systems[edit]

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

There are some sources in the article (such as this one) and I did find this one in a Google search, but all of these articles appear to be generic coverage in trade publications. Does this article meet the WP:NCORP? I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise, but this is a small company with 40 employees. Alansohn (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Three of the sources given are deadlinks. This one[1] is an interview with company's president, fails WP:ORGIND.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding anything that makes this company notable. Jeepday (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Not enough to meet notability guidelines. Habiliment (talk) 11:19, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Blais[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person "notable" only for having declared his intention to run for the leadership of a political party, but then not actually following through with it. To be fair, at the time this was first created (2006) we did accept candidacy for the leadership of a political party as a notability claim in its own right -- but that's long since been deprecated, and unsuccessful leadership candidates don't get articles anymore unless they have some other notability claim besides that (such as having already been a member of the party's legislative caucus in Parliament, which Blais never was.) So it was a good faith creation at the time, but it doesn't pass 2020-era standards of notability or sourcing anymore. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article makes no claim to notability and does not pass WP:NPOL. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet current notability, google news leads to mostly French articles (I don't read French) there are no linked foreign language articles, implying those articles do not support notability for French Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. In Canada, anybody can run for a party leader. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomist candidate[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a "political party" that isn't really a political party. This wasn't an organized party at all, but merely the self-conferred designation of one single candidate in one election -- so in reality, this is less an article about a political party, and more an attempt to smuggle an article about an unsuccessful election candidate past WP:NPOL by packaging it as a political party instead of a personal biography. But candidates don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and even if we were to judge this by the inclusion standards for political parties it still wouldn't clear the bar: those still require actual sources, and actual evidence of actual incorporation as a registered political party. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything to meet notability Jeepday (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is unsourced, but most of the basic facts of the candidacy are verifiable. Unfortunately, I can't tell if this is a political party or a ballot line; the Winnipeg Free Press describes Masse as an "anti-Communist and autonomist candidate". Either way, with only 1 person involved who was never elected, and without substantial coverage (or any coverage apart from election results) it isn't notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just a very short biography of Paul Massé, who does not meet notability standards. The relevant information regarding his election performances may be found in the articles of each election. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 17:11, 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. Sandstein 09:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Savannah[edit]

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

Savannah is a major city but it has no skyscrapers. What we have here is a list of all buildings in Savannah, and two outside Savannah, that are at least 27m tall.

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 do not constitute significant coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Savannah' 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 Georgia nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building being taller than 27m 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.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The usual list of not very tall and largely non-notable buildings, sourced as usual entirely to Emporis. Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG, there is not WP:SIGCOV discussing the subject directly and indepth or WP:LISTN, WP:RS do not discuss this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the List does not meet the purposes of WP:CLN, only a single list entry has an article about a structure that may not meet WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 01:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. If the only claim to notability is from Stillwell Towers then it's a very weak one. Spiderone 10:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I'm not even convinced that Stillwell Towers is notable... Edge3 (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have nominated Stillwell Towers for deletion via WP:PROD. Edge3 (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - has three out of four elements of my standards: large enough city, three buildings over 60 stories, two of which are blue links, and it makes sense. I lean towards a keep because it's well-known city that attracts tourists, and articles could be written about more of the buildings on the list. Bearian (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: which buildings are over 60 stories? I also can only see one blue linked building. Spiderone 10:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the comments above. Savannah's architecture is not known for its tall buildings. Edge3 (talk) 01:26, 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. Sandstein 09:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

René Matteau[edit]

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

Poorly referenced biography of a person notable only as mayor of a midsized city. As always, mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors: Trois-Rivières is certainly a significant enough city that a well-referenced and substantive article about a mayor could be kept, but that's not what this article is: it literally consists of just 16 words stating that he existed, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all: the city government's own self-published website about itself, and his death notice on the website of the funeral home that held his funeral. But the notability test for a mayor is not passed just because you can use a couple of primary sources to verify that he existed: it requires some genuine substance about his political significance, such as specific effects he had on the city's development, and it requires reliable sourcing to real media and real books. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL Jeepday (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - mayor of a city of 134,413 that is also a regional centre. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors aren't extended an automatic notability freebie just because of the city's population size. Regardless of whether it's a city of 134,413, a city of three million or a village of 10, mayoral notability requires the article to be substantive and well-sourced, and no mayor of any city ever gets to keep a badly sourced article which literally just says that he existed, the end. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 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. Sandstein 09:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Rowland[edit]

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

Subject is a clear WP:BASIC fail – after WP:BEFORE work, it appears that the main coverage this subject gets are in gossipy teen mags, which don't cut it for the purpose of a Wikipedia WP:BLP. While the subject is a plausible WP:NACTOR case, that doesn't trump a substantial absence of coverage under WP:BASIC. Almost certainly WP:TOOSOON. As there are two plausible redirect targets, the only option here is AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, fails WP:BASIC and it is way too soon. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Seigneur[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable only as an unelected candidate for political office. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and a non-winning candidate has to either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy (i.e. holding a different notable political office, or clearing our inclusion standards in some other career), or (b) show a depth and range and volume of coverage that would mark their candidacy out as much more special than the norm. But this shows neither of those things: it states nothing about him but the unsuccessful candidacy itself, and cites no sources but a raw table of election results. In fact, I would have been tempted to speedy it for not even making a claim of notability at all, but it's somehow been flying under the radar since 2004 -- so no matter how speediable it may be in principle, I don't feel comfortable arbitrarily killing an article that's been around that long. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL Jeepday (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fringe parliamentary candidate who got about 1 % of the vote. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 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. Sandstein 09:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nines (card game)[edit]

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

This page was started in 2007 by an editor who "created it from scratch". It has never been sourced and I can find no trace of a game called Nines at all in American or British card game literature. There are games called Nines online, but not with these rules. It appears therefore to be completely non-notable and even the original creation comment suggests WP:OR. The article has been tagged as having no sources for 9 years and I gave notice that this could be put up for deletion over 18 months ago and there's been zero response. My sense is that this should have been deleted years ago.Bermicourt (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom...should have deleted it nine years ago. Kolma8 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Nines" is plainly a variant of "Manni" @ Pagat. If the article is deleted (which I'm not advocating for or against) it might be well to send John McLeod a copy of the original rules first. Perhaps they will be of no use to him, having no clear provenance, but who knows? Phil wink (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'll do that as I'm in regular contact with John. I'll also copy the article temporarily to my User pages in case it gets deleted before he's had a chance to comment. As a rule, I don't think John publishes material on pagat.com that is unsourced, but it may be already in the pipeline. Bermicourt (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source I could find for this is catsatcards.com, which I would not consider to be a reliable source. Even if it were considered reliable, it would still only be a single source and not the multiple sources required by GNG. While the generic name does make searching for sources more difficult, being tagged as unsourced for over 9 years is more than enough time allowed for any obscure sources to come to light. Lowercaserho (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Okay, so John McLeod has just confirmed that he has heard that this game is played in eastern Canada and so it gets a brief mention on pagat.com under Card Games in Canada. As well as the catsatcards link he sent through two others in the French language (the game looks like it may be played in Quebec): one on a Canadian Cribbage site and the other here. I'm not convinced they qualify as reliable sources, albeit there seems to be some evidence that this is a real game and played regionally in Canada. If the consensus is that the sources are good enough, I'm willing to withdraw this nom and add the sources to the article. What do others think? Bermicourt (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider the pagat.com link to be reliable but not significant in its coverage, and the others to be significant but not reliable. My French is rusty but they both look like personal websites as far as I can tell. Based on this, I still think this doesn't meet our notability standards and would still advocate deletion. Lowercaserho (talk) 01:08, 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JediMUD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Any Google Books mention of this title shows that it's only invoked in passing, so we're left with none of the in-depth coverage we would need to support a dedicated article. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, as List of MUDs requires each row to have its own article. czar 01:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 01:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it lacks significant notability and coverage. Would need more supporting links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 16:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - MUDs almost get zero coverage from the press, so the lack of sources for this doesn't surprise me. It doesn't establish any notability and I can't see any way to redirect/merge it. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 27 November 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per the request of User:Czar.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see where this can meet WP:NGAME as mentioned by the OP, the google book hits are minor refences. Jeepday (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:RS concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:49, 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 speedy keep. Missvain (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yharnam[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full disclosure, I am the creator. Extremely lazy nom with no rationale besides WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE. Article has been clearly heavily referenced and has a fairly large reception section, as well as the potential for much more expansion from one of the most critically praised games ever created. To come to the conclusion that it has no coverage, I'd assume the article was not even read a single time before pressing the AfD button._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't see any reason to delete this well-sourced content. Some might argue that a merge to Bloodborne would be appropriate but I would oppose that as it would then give too much weight to Yharnam in an already very large article. A separate article makes sense. Spiderone 17:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This should be merged back to Bloodborne, the parent article, given that (1) the parent article is not too long (2) how underdeveloped the development section is and (3) the city itself is not independently notable. The sources are mainly discussing the game or its expansion, rather than this fictional city. OceanHok (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The development section has a lot of room for expansion. Per WP:NEXIST there shouldn't be a discussion about merging just because it's small now._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is enough specifically about the design of Yharnam (not just the game) in the Reception section to pass GNG. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sigh. Dark knight 2149 20:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - outside sources help article pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough here to pass the minimum standard for GNG in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mentions in three notable RS means GNG is met. You want to negotiate a merge? Be our guest... but this is not the right lever to move in that direction. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 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. Sandstein 09:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Takam-Chi (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing found to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged since December 2019. Prior AfD was no consensus. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find anything to establish WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:28, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nëse vdes[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable song that is only known for competing in (not even winning) an Albanian music contest. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jjj1238:. Festivali i Këngës 59 has not even started and the song is considered to win the contest, to be precisely the song is regarded as a fan favourite.[2][3] etc. etc. Therefore, I propose not to delete the article, there are songs that are less important and have a Wikipedia article.--Lorik17 (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Even if you think the song may be notable in the future, it is not notable now. Please read WP:TOOSOON. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously fails WP:MUSIC. We can't have articles about any random pop song. Khirurg (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely doesn't pass wp:n.Alexikoua (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Alex-h (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the song does not yet meet the notability criteria outlined at MUSIC for songs. I would suggest redirecting to the artist but the artist doesn't yet have an article Spiderone 16:52, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emma-Kate Dewhurst[edit]

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

On balance of sources available, I think that Dewhurst fails WP:GNG. She still plays football but only at a very low level. She gets some coverage in match reports which show that she has adapted to being an outfield player. As interesting as that may be, I don't see enough coverage of that to build a biography from. She is subject to this article in the SMH but it's just a random news story and has no relevance to her as a sportsperson or public figure. There is nothing there that would be worth mentioning in an encyclopaedia article. There is this Newcastle Herald article too but the coverage is not focused on her. All in all, not enough to justify an article on someone that made 7 appearances in the W-League and now plays at the local level. Spiderone 14:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG and NFOOTBALL failure. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline that I can see. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While there was a good rationale provided for merging the article, the clear preponderance of keep !votes provide consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newsmax TV[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion. This page probably should just be a redirect to Newsmax; it has been "under construction" for four years with very little valid, WP:RS information on the page and no active editors apparently engaged in discussions. Most of what is sourced is already reflected at Newsmax. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The network's distribution has only increased in the last year, along with both its notability and notoriety, and its profile has obviously increased in the last month. There's a major difference between what is seen on the website, and what is carried by the television network, and a WP:BEFORE would easily prove as such. I do certainly agree there's been more IP vandalism activity involving political sides arguing about its reporting style and verifiability, but that's something protection easily takes care of. Nate • (chatter) 19:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an odd nomination. The article cites a recent New York Times article, "Newsmax courts Fox News viewers with election denialism" and a Washington Post article, "Newsmax has emerged as a landing spot for cable news personalities in need of a new home", both entirely about the organization's plans and business practices. These are among more than two dozen existing references that the nominator does not attempt to account for. This really does not make sense. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: as I mentioned in nomination, both of the sources you discuss are also used for very similar wording at the main Newsmax article. I do not see this article doing anything that the main is not, or providing anything sourced that the main article isn't already reflecting. Of the entire "Notable personalities" section, the only entry that is sourced is sourced to hermancain.com, which for obvious reasons is not WP:RS. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination said that the article "has been "under construction" for four years with very little valid, WP:RS information on the page". This is simply not true. There are many RS that have been added in the last month or so: New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, Columbia Journalism Review, the Daily Beast, Vox, CNN, Vanity Fair, Fast Company, Variety. Now you're saying that the problem is that these sources are also used at the main Newsmax article, which is not relevant to the subject's notability. If you want to propose a merge, AfD is not the place to do that. Your statement that the "Notable personalities" section doesn't have enough citations is not relevant, per WP:ARTN. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs:Well please point me to the location to propose a merge, then, since the last AFD I saw had people posting suggestions to merge. And I don't see how WP:ARTN justifies having an entire section or list-of-names that is unsourced, please explain the language you find there supporting your interpretation? IHateAccounts (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARTN says that the current state of the article does not affect the notability of the subject. If one section of the page does not cite any sources, it does not detract from the extremely well-sourced article's notability. You can read about the merge process at WP:MERGE. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was surprised to find that this legitimate, six year old article about a growing TV network was up for deletion. If it's a source problem, then fix the sources, but don't punish the article, and don't punish the readers who want to look at the article. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AGree with User:Johnsmith2116] - it seems page may be another dirty-20202-politics victim by being nominated for deletion. Multiple, reliale resources are noted. I'd research further some of the claims as it does appear to be biased; will look for some additional balance to add.Star7924 (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of the topic is very clearly defined by the sources in the article. Meets WP:GNG (and WP:BCAST). Raymie (t • c) 03:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the TV channel is sufficiently distinct from the website that it needs its own article. There is not a great deal of overlap in sourcing. Vexations (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stunning deletion request. There is sufficient content and sourcing for separate article on a subject that meets WP:GNG. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a lefty, but as much as I wish this TV channel didn't exist, it does. It is notable. I could be easily convinced to !vote to merge it with the parent article, but deleting it is just too drastic. ◦ Trey Maturin 21:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Newsmax. In the modern age, it seems odd to cover Internet operations separately from TV, particularly in cases like these where neither article is so big that merging them would make an unwieldy sum. (All the more so when an unsourced laundry list of names is pruned.) The sources don't even really support the idea of a clean dividing line; for example, the Washington Post item linked above talks about their app and their YouTube channel. It's all one thing, and we should reflect that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per excellent points made by XOR'easter. When you trim the section on "notable personalities" (which currently has only one inline citation) and pare down the rest of the (properly sourced) content down to the essentials (the section on terrestrial affiliates is completely unsourced), you have a few paragraphs that will easily merge into Newsmax. As XOR'easter has pointed out, it is unusual to continue treating different mediums of the same entity in a separate manner when everything today revolves around the Internet as the central medium. Laval (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Merge but I think it's basically merged already. As I noted in my nomination, the talk page has had the "Under Construction" section, placed by AKA Casey Rollins, begging "Please do not delete this page! I am still working on it" since 20 October 2014 with little to no improvement. Further, upon reviewing the 25 sources on the page (which I did before nominating but I'll lay it all out here again):

This article is already reflected at Newsmax. ("South Florida's Newsmax rides wave of interest...")
The Sara Polsky article does not mention Newsmax in any way. I have no idea why anyone put it into the page.
This specific article is not reflected at Newsmax, but an equivalent article from Politico on the DirecTV launch of Newsmax's channel is.
Does not seem to be a WP:RS, and it's a dead link that reverts to the multichannel.com homepage.
This article is already reflected at Newsmax. (""Newsmax has emerged as a landing spot for cable news personalities...")
This article is already reflected at Newsmax. ("Newsmax hopes conservative anger...")
This article is already reflected at Newsmax. ("The Next Ailes: Newsmax's Chris Ruddy ...")
This is self-sourced to Newsmax.com and is not WP:RS. ("Dennis Michael Lynch Hosts New Show"...)
This is to Mediaite, a "marginally reliable" source. ("Newsmax Host Taken Off the Air...")
This is a good WP:RS, and the content is not yet reflected at Newsmax. It is already reflected at Dennis Michael Lynch. ("Newsmax Host Dennis Michael Lynch Is Pulled Off the Air...")
This is sourced direct back to Newsmax's website, promotional content only. (Howie Carr)
Notations on Spicer joining Newsmax are already reflected at Newsmax
Notations on Greg Kelly at Newsmax are already reflected at Newsmax
This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("Trump voters are flocking...")
This article is already reflected at Newsmax (""Donald Trump attacks Fox News: 'They forgot the golden goose'")
This article is already reflected at Newsmax (and is a duplicate of number 6). ("Newsmax hopes conservative anger...")
This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("Newsmax could end up being the Fox News of the post-Trump era")
This article is already reflected at Newsmax (and is a duplicate of number 14). ("Trump voters are flocking...")
This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("Newsmax courts Fox News viewers with election denialism")
This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("My two days watching Newsmax...")
This article is already reflected at Newsmax ("The misinformation media machine...")
This article is already reflected at Newsmax (and is again a duplicate of number 14). ("Trump voters are flocking...")
This specific article is not reflected at Newsmax, but equivalent coverage of ratings by AdWeek is.
This is sourced to hermancain.com and is laughably not WP:RS. (Calabrese)
Once again, just promotional material. I don't see the point of citing to the Newsmax's website, it's not WP:RS. (Newsmax website)

Again, while I could say "merge", I nominated this article for deletion because the merging has basically already been done. There's literally only one decent WP:RS source whose content isn't already reflected at the main Newsmax page, and that ONE is only about a specific host leaving the network over editorial-control disputes. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing these additional and useful details. I just discovered that there is an article for Newsmax Media, which is also largely duplicating the same material on Newsmax and I have proposed merging the former to the latter. Laval (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laval:Yes, that's another one. It's really redundant and unhelpful to have three different articles for what is a singular entity. Thanks for nominating it. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our articles on the website and the TV channel seem quite different, and neither is so short as to be dwarfed by the other, so I don't see merging. While they are connected, each seems independently notable. --GRuban (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not in their demographic, let's just say, but there's no question that this station is notable and the article is distinct from the other. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the TV station seems to be a distinct entity and we generally keep individual articles for a TV station. These articles contain information about ratings, broadcast history and notable programmes/anchors. There is also enough coverage specifically about the cable TV channel to have an article [4], [5], [6], [7] (distinct from the Newsmax website). I think this is good enough to keep. Rather, what should be merged is Newsmax and Newsmax Media. I note that this merge proposal has already been made and is in progress, so this article can be kept.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:52, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Tanti[edit]

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

A player who only very briefly featured in the W-League. This and this record four appearances in 08/09 and then Soccerway records one appearance in 11/12. Her non-league career does get some coverage here and here but it's all from the same source and I'm not sure that it's enough coverage to justify an article on a footballer playing below the professional level. Spiderone 13:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:53, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Tank[edit]

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

This is a small design studio. The refs/external links are all dead or primary. A google search doesn't return anything that would establish notability. Created by a SPA probably as an advert. Desertarun (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete many sources are dead links and most of the rest from archive.org. Possibly if all sources work and can be checked, it can be reconsidered, but i vote delete in this format for not meeting significant coverage. Peter303x (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not indication in the article of Nobility. A single award In 2010 Beta Tank was awarded Designer of The Future award by Design Miami during the Art Basel. is not going to make it notable. As mentioned in by Peter303x most of the links (even wayback) are dead, so if there is/was something we can't find it. I don't find anything on Google that might make it notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:53, 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 Speedy Delete under A7. Deb has decided to delete the article early. (non-admin closure) Foxnpichu (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor (2020 film)[edit]

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

No reviews or anything else found in a search. Seems to fail WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speedy deleting this. At best, it's an A7. Deb (talk) 14:42, 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. Geschichte (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Bobrov[edit]

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

Does not meet any criteria for notability per WP:CREATIVE or WP:AUTHOR. No online presence in Russian or English internet. Kolma8 (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only thing I am finding in a BEFORE search is social media sites and music download sites. No indication of exhibitions, reviews, articles in RS nor museum collections. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding anything that would meet WP:ARTIST Jeepday (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:CREATIVE. Lots of artists get into galleries, like this person, but all three galleries are red links. Bearian (talk) 02:24, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of football club nicknames in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

As per strong consensus here and here. Also as per WP:IINFO and failure of WP:LISTN. The list has no navigational purpose. Also see discussion here, where it was suggested that it would be WP:BIAS to keep this article when all other similar ones are up for deletion. Spiderone 11:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per recent consensus, not notable. Giant Snowman 16:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator and views above re. notability and consensus. There are also numerous issues around the practicality of having an article like this in terms of what you include (eg if fans of other teams regularly refer to a team by a derogatory name, should that be included? What about short lived nicknames). Also the origins and usage of club's nicknames is often obscure and debatable. Nicknames can be discussed in a club's article, but having a list is just trivia. Dunarc (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and above. // Timothy :: talk 19:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per all the previous consensuses on the matter, most recently this one. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 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 no consensus. JGHowes ^talk 19:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral High School (New Ulm, Minnesota)[edit]

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

Not notable.

As per WP:NSCHOOL, "mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both."

As per WP:ORGSIG, schools are not exempt from the "No inherent notability" rule (i.e. it is not considered notable for the reason that it exists).

As per WP:GNG, the subject of this article doesn't satisfy the guideline as it can't satisfy any of the conditions (significant sources, reliable sources, independent of the subject etc.)

Upon a Google search, it receives very little/no notice from independent sources. It has had minimal effect on "culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" (from WP:ORG). The closest that comes to this is a swimmer who signed with the UoM, which is defined as "trivial" by WP:ORGDEPTH.

The article only has 3 citations, all of which would be considered primary. Also, I had initially accidentally submitted a PROD instead of an AfD. An argument given was that it is old thus shouldn't be deleted. Although it is old, age is not a guideline for establishing notability (unless it's some exception e.g. being the oldest school, which it doesn't qualify for).

As per WP:AUD "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". This school has not received mention from any non-local (i.e. non-regional) media.

Finally, this was the original page, added on 22 May, 2007. Looking at the changes since, you can see that the only additions have been the infobox, categories, and 2 citations. This, in my eyes, shows that there has been an extremely low level of interest over the past 13 years and thus strengthens the case for non-notability.

Hun ter 00:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, a lot of sources exist, but they're all local. I would second the claim that "The article only has 3 citations, all of which would be considered trivial." I wouldn't consider them trivial, but I would consider them primary. Le Panini ^Talk 00:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Panini, USA Today and NY Times are not just local sources. Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dswitz10734, No, I was talking about https://www.newulm.com/. A lot of articles about the school there. Le Panini ^Talk 00:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Whoops, first time making an AfD and didn't really understand the difference. Thanks for the clarification. Hun ter 14:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all previous comments. Pahunkat (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per excellent reasoning of nom Spiderone 11:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Sliekid (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, local coverage is not excluded for GNG purposes and there is lots of local coverage here that neither primary nor trivial, e.g. these articles regarding the 100th anniversary of the school [8][9]. Second, there is also significant non-local coverage as well e.g. these articles in New York Times [10] and USA Today [11] about a major controversy regarding the school (more sources on that [12][13]). Satisfies WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nsk92:Thanks for the reply. I couldn't see any of those articles due to GDPR. Not sure if Google restricts me from looking at them, but I couldn't find it at all in my Google search results. I have looked at them via proxy now, and I've got a few comments to make. Please bear in mind I'm still new, so might be making a few mistakes. Shouldn't citations 4, 5 and 6 count as 1 source? Citation 5 states that it is only using the information from citation 6, thus it is rewording and copying the story. Citation 4 is similarly using the content from citation 6. Additionally, the author for citation 4 doesn't have any other authors, thus it would count as a guest contribution which isn't as strong notability-wise as an article written by the staff of the news website. Therefore, we are left with 2 sources (which are, keeping in mind, the only non-local sources given). Therefore, I am doubtful that only 2 articles would count as significant coverage. As seen in the WP:3REFS essay, it would generally require 3 sources to be notable. It does say that it could be notable with 2 sources, but in the bottommost section of essay, it suggests that 3 independent references from different periods of time would successfully rebut notability challenges. Although I know that the essay isn't an official guideline, the fact that there are only 2 significant articles written about it and both for a specific event suggests that the school isn't notable. As per WP:ORGDEPTH, "Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization". Therefore, from my understanding, the firing controversy shouldn't even be used to provide justification for the organisation (i.e. the school, as it is subject to organisation guidelines). Therefore, if we only look at the articles about the school itself, we are left with very few local articles describing the 100th anniversary of the school. As stated in my nomination, WP:AUD says that you need "significant coverage by... national, or at least regional, media" to suggest strong notability, thus it would still be non-notable. I apologise if this is excessively long or if I've misunderstood the guidelines; as I said I'm still new so I'm prone to mistakes. Hun ter 01:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources quote each other all the time (New York Times quotes WaPo and vice versa), but they are still considered separate sources unless one source simply reprints an article from another (which also happens quite often). Your point about [14] being a "guest contribution" and therefore somehow worth less in terms of notability than an article by a staff writer is complete and utter nonsense, There is no absolutely requirement of this kind anywhere in any notability guidelines and I've never heard it raised before even once, and I have participated in hundreds of AfDs. Newspapers use freelance journalists all the time and their articles are just as valid as those by regular staff writers. WP:3REFS is an essay with absolutely no policy weight or force. I am arguing notability based on WP:GNG here, not WP:ORG, so WP:ORGDEPTH is not relevant either. Nsk92 (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsk92: It's pretty well established that articles written by contributors are considered self-published and are therefore "worth-less" (or really nothing) then pieces by staff writers. Plenty of sources in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources that are based on RfCs so say. For instance, the entry for Forbes.com says "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources." The entry for Encyclopedia Britannica says "editors believe that content from non-staff contributors is less reliable than the encyclopedia's staff-authored content." The entry for Entrepreneur magazine says "there is a consensus that "contributor" pieces in the publication should be treated as self-published, similar to Forbes contributors" Etc. Etc. So, there is clearly a consensus that articles by contributors are not good for determining notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some specific publications where contributor pieces receive no editorial oversight and are considered unreliable, but such publications are certainly an exception and not the rule. Until you mentioned them, I haven't even heard about those. One has to assume that this is why these publications are explicitly listed in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Most publications have editors review contributor pieces prior to publication and such sources are reliable. Nsk92 (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep I appreciate the points made by @Nsk92. This school has coverage not only in USA Today, but NY Times as well. Why would you nominate this article for deletion when it clearly demonstrates notability? Dswitz10734 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, please see the comments I made to Nsk92. Hun ter 01:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources about this are local and or primary. Except for ones written by contributors of national outlets. Which the consensus is pretty clear are not reliable sources due to being on par with self-published material. Which, I guess would qualify them as primary also. So, article fails the notability guidelines due to it not being discussed in multiple in-depth, non-local, "reliable" sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were quite a few sources about the school in a historical newspapers.com search. I've added the first few I've found into the article. It should pass WP:GNG easily, and we don't delete schools we can write an article on just because they haven't received more than local coverage, otherwise there would be a dearth of school articles. Interestingly, the school hasn't been as well-covered recently, so not surprised a google search alone wouldn't demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T·C 12:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided indicate that the article meets general notability guidelines. The article also meets WP:NGO because of the scandal involving the dance coach that was covered in the New York Times. The WP:NGO guideline specifically states that scandals are a valid reason for inclusion if they are covered in independent sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This being kept seems to hinge on the "scandals" involving the dance couch and mainly the "article about it" in the New York Times. WP:GNG requires that a source contains "Significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail." In the case of the New York Times article, called "She Was Given a Deadline, but Married on Her Own Terms" for anyone interesting, that is not the case. Nowhere in the article is the school discussed directly or in detail. It's just named dropped in paragraph's about their dance coach getting married. In fact, the school is only mentioned once by name to say she coached there for 20 years. In no way does a single name drop pass WP:GNG. Nor does an article where that is the source that the topics notability supposedly hinges on. Nothing against the user, but Nsk92 has contributed similarly un-usable sources to AfDs about schools. So, I suggest that sources by them be reviewed to make sure they actually pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG instead of just taking the existence of the sources at face value. Really, people should be reviewing the sources to make sure they follow the guidelines anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Skorpions13256- @Adamant- for notability no, thats not the system. For a reference within an article thats good editing practice.ClemRutter (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter: What's not "the system" for notability? I directly quoted the notability guidelines. Going by your keep comments in this and other school related AfDs, it seems as though you don't know what your talking about when it comes to the guidelines and that your just voting keep in all of them because your irritated by AfDs about schools for some reason. Not due to them actually being notable or anything along those lines. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The thread above lists plenty of credible sources for the margin of notability required for this to be an article on Wikipedia. Comm260 ncu (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:36, 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. Sandstein 09:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Skobeeva[edit]

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

does not meet any criteria for WP:AUTHOR as listed in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals, no significant presence on-line on any reputable sources, the links in the article are dead. Kolma8 (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the creator of the article contributed only to this article, no other contributions; the article was nominated on speedy deletion in the past. Kolma8 (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and they don't seem to meet WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:51, 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. Geschichte (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elle Semmens[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG as I was not able to find any reliable sources discussing Semmens at length. Does not meet any inclusion guideline. Spiderone 11:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, meets per Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Association_football. Kolma8 (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She technically does not meet that guideline. See [15] [16] where no international matches are recorded. She would need to pass WP:GNG really to qualify for an article. Spiderone 12:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree with your argument and switch to Delete. Kolma8 (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:10, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Whitburn[edit]

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

notability and lack of reliable sources concerns, does not meet WP:BASIC for biographiesKolma8 (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's compiled, and written, many music chart reference works over at least four decades. A quick Google search reveals articles and/or reviews of his work in the Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone, Village Voice... Caro7200 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – He is a significant authority on music publishing and his works are widely cited, including in hundreds of articles on Wikipedia. Billboard calls him "legendary". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a weak keep, but I think he passes the notability criteria as per Caro7200 and Michael Bednarek. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the other editors here, this person does pass notability. The article needs work, but AfD isn't the venue for that. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 19:26, 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. Geschichte (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balmoral College[edit]

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

This article about a children's day school does not cite any sources and I was unable to find anything about the school in a WP:BEFORE. There wasn't even the usual name drops or brief mentions in trivial news stories that a lot of schools have. Therefore, this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. There's apparently a school by the same name in Africa. So people should make sure any possible sources aren't actually about that one. Adamant1 (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely fails WP:ORG; the article also lacks citations from independent sources.---Darius (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schools are required to pass WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG and this one completely and utterly fails on all counts Spiderone 17:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A before search turns up nothing concrete. Celestina007 (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. --TerrellTrevon (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:RS. Other than the date of founding, there is not a single fact on the page, just an unsourced wall of words. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Goodrich[edit]

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

Appears to fall short on our inclusion guidelines. This source, in my view, is not enough to pass WP:GNG. I could not find any other significant coverage from any other media source. She was an international footballer but only at youth level. Multiple sources state that she only played in two fixtures totalling 105 minutes of football. She may well still be active but it looks like she is playing at local level if that is the same Brooke Goodrich. Spiderone 10:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all previous comments; impressive, but fails notability on all fronts. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 16:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:47, 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. Sandstein 09:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consoles Hardware[edit]

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

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a listing of information without context. There is no particular reason why the hardware of all video game consoles must be in one place, as evidenced by the awkward title. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something more inline with our standards. We have plenty of random lists of trivia, such as List of Apple codenames, and this seems about as relevant as that. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 16:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, especially since the List of Apple codenames never came up for AfD or any sort of substantive discussion on the merits of its existence. It also seems like a WP:INDISCRIMINATE situation, as the codenames for Apple products are largely irrelevant to a general audience._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has nothing to do with codenames? I'd like to see the WP:NLIST source that justifies a comparison of highly detailed technical information about assorted CPUs and GPUs over two decades. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY is right. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 20:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Czar's rationale. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RetroMUD[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) There are no worthwhile redirect targets, as List of MUDs requires each row to have its own article. Ineligible for PROD because it has been PROD'd before. @Mark viking endorsed the PROD, writing, "I tried to find reliable sources in addition to the book source below and failed. There are history docs and reviews online for this MUD, but none were found in reliable sources." czar 08:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 08:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not establish notability. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 03:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Chompy Ace 07:18, 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. Geschichte (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rahima Akter[edit]

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

Failure to establish notability. Quick Google search only brings up the sources cited in the article, which all talk about the same incident (her expulsion from Cox's Bazar International University for alleged racist reasons). The incident itself does not make her notable enough to warrant an article, especially since she is not mentioned in any other publications outside of this incident. CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E, fails WP:GNG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see how expulsion nearly 30 years ago creates notability. Trillfendi (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It happened last year, though. Geschichte (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Serv181920 (talk) 10:55, 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major Organ and the Adding Machine (film)[edit]

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

Not a notable film. Initially proposed a merger but there isn’t really anything to merge. Dronebogus (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a notable film. Kolma8 (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NFILM so shouldn't have its own article; no content worth merging so I agree that delete is the best option Spiderone 17:51, 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 to Carnival Row. Consensus is that the topic fails notability requirements, but he is mentioned in the target article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arty Froushan[edit]

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

One major role in Carnival Row, plus a lack of media notice, isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nominating this article for deletion is very short-sighted, Arty is a main character in Carnival Row which attracted over 100,000 pageviews per day, when it was released. The only reason why series 2 has not been released yet is due to filming being halted due of the Covid-19 epidemic. Otherwise he will be extremely notable again to many million viewers. So be patient, don't be rash to delete this article. Let us just wait and see what notability he gains on the release of series 2, otherwise, almost an absolute certainty this article will have to be reinstated.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't received any press coverage to speak of, so why would anyone assume another season would change that? (It's also WP:CRYSTALBALL.) The number of page views of Carnival Row is irrelevant, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Finally, even if he has a major part, NACTOR states he needs multiple significant roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the definition of suitable notoriety is at least one article/interview about him, not just a passing mention. I count two interviews within that article, so passes with flying colours. Very odd indeed that this article is even considered for deletion.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come up with that definition of "suitable notoriety"? Also, interviews are useless for WP:verifiability. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Per Nom) with WP:ATD of Redirect to Carnival Row: Wikipedia sourcing criteria, especially concerning a BLP, does not include "one article/interview" as an acceptable criteria. WP:Notability (people) states in the lead; For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. The "Basic criteria" section states; People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. "One article/interview" is not included. NACTOR adds to the criteria not waters it down. Previous to the current role the subject was just a bit-part actor. I don't even know how to gauge "Almost an absolute certainty", which is subjective, concerning future episodes. It is just too soon at this point. Otr500 (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are not reliable, didn’t find any secondary sources focused on this subject. Fails both WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Did not see any other programmes this person had a major role in either. Duncan079 (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carnival Row. Redirects are cheap, and he did have a significant role in the film. But I agree they don't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shady Rest, California[edit]

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inmans, California, this appears as a single building in the middle of Sequioa National Forest on a limited number of topos. Newspapers.com hits are for a planned housing development near Mammoth Lakes, California, a trailer park at Lompoc, California, a set in a Hollywood film studio, and some old blockhouse destroyed by gangsters in the 1920s, but nothing about this supposed place. Looks to fail WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom: Just creating an article from a name on a map and one GNIS listing offers nothing of encyclopedic value and certainly nothing of "historical" significance. The GNIS site giving a listing of historical "means that the feature no longer exists on the landscape or no longer serves its original function." Also, the GNIS site is no longer "officially" updated but through an online crowdsourcing mapping project with user updates. While the site might be great for a starting point as "proof of name" and for coordinates, it is not a pass for inherent notability. Otr500 (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Spiderone 23:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 04:08, 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. Sandstein 09:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redrock, California[edit]

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

Appears on the 1943 Saltdale topo, but not earlier or later ones. Exactly one building is at the site. There was an Easter sunrise service at Redrock in 1959. Other newspapers.com entries are for the nearby Redrock Canyon, or the "Redrock mining district". Gudde mentions several Red Rocks in the bits I can get on Gbooks preview, but all appear to be in other counties. It's unclear what this is, but it definitely doesn't seem to be a legally recognized community. WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG are not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Spiderone 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 03:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Ryder (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER. An already-existing hatnote atop Honey Ryder states, "For the band, see Honey Ryder (band)." The entirely superfluous Honey Ryder (disambiguation) page is not even mentioned. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pretty straightforward and SOP. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Superfluous disambiguation page. Dark knight 2149 20:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant Spiderone 21:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. As the nominator already says, a hatnote should be used instead. Aoba47 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with the above comments that this is a redundant page. Dunarc (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyzer Entrepreneurship Centre[edit]

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

The references are either pure PR, such as "@businessline" -- which is a place to for publishing press releases, or other promotional notices of interviews DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. 3 sources are from the same place and does not meet notability. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article comes nowhere close to satisfying corporate notability. If I had been reviewing this as a draft, I would have rejected it as saying only what the company says about itself and not what others say about it. But this article doesn't even say much about what the company says about itself. It appears that the author may have believed the myth that the key to writing a Wikipedia article is the quantity of the references. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:42, 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Holmes Didwania[edit]

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

directory entry--no evidence for notability under WP:PROF or otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google scholar lists three total papers which have been cited at least once. Citation counts of 78, 14, and 2. Her faculty profile has a section for publications and media appearances but only scholarly publications are listed so maybe that's a template used for all faculty at the school? Her CV doesn't list any other positions with would satisfy other criteria for WP:PROF and the only awards listed are undergraduate and graduate ones. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. To the analysis above, I would add that her position as "Harry A. Bigelow Fellow" appears to be a postdoctoral research position, neither the kind of fellow that passes WP:PROF#C3 nor the kind of named position that passes #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 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 redirect to David Musgrave. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puncher & Wattmann[edit]

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

No apparent notability. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 04:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 04:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Kolma8 (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Musgrave, an obvious alternative to deletion which must be considered before the page is deleted outright. Deus et lex (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I of course have no objection to a redirect. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Both make sense given the state of the article and options. gidonb (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to David Musgrave: Non notable publishing house, fails NCORP.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Musgrave, redirects are cheap. Not enough in-depth coverage to show independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:41, 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. Sandstein 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paloma, Kern County, California[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have been a community. Topos show a Paloma school to the northwest of here closer to Millux, California, with the name Paloma at a single building next to a pond a couple miles away. Later, the school and the building are gone and the Paloma Oil Refinery appears. Newspapers.com hits are about a Paloma oil field and some oil well drilling at the Paloma site. Seems to have been some sort of oil feature, not a community. WP:GEOLAND is not met, and I don't think WP:GNG is, either. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. WP:NOTDICTIONARY is a policy and two list references do not provide any prose for encyclopedic coverage. Otr500 (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 03:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheeky Panda[edit]

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

Toilet roll company. Notability concerns with references seeming to rely heavily on coverage surrounding the company's crowdfunding efforts. Uhooep (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing wrong with making toilet roll. But I doubt it makes us notable at this scale. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Updated article? I've added both sources and content, including questions about the environmental credentials - is this enough to keep it in? (PS: is this how I'm supposed to add my comments? My first time in this sort of situation.) CitLonLiv (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the notability here.Kolma8 (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I am Chris the co-founder - it was brought to my attention today someone did the reasearch on our company. I've added Sunday Times Fast Track 100 Ones to Watch award which we got last week. I am happy to provide and additional data and links to the content. As a fast track company valued at over £50m it would be good to have a page and we are on track for IPO so it would be a shame to lose the research put together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Forbes 212 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Forbes 212: Please read the welcome message on your newly created talk page with the included COI warning and instructions for signing your comments. Otr500 (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've deleted the talk item. I'll be honest I've used Wiki for 10 years now but I have never had an account or edited anything so I am not familiar with even how to correctly number and reference articles. I'v always found Wiki super useful for its neutrality, some of my edits while based in fact might not be neutral enough. So happy for someone other than myself to review and edit, its better that way. As a company with a strong ESG profile and high growth I think it would be a super useful example of how a 21st century company should operate compared to the old world economies. It should sit well with the Wiki values. I guess we are at the editorials mercy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Forbes 212 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom and Alexandermcnabb. Fails WP:NCORP and What Wikipedia is not. I have not tried the products. I would venture that almost everyone appreciates a good roll of toilet paper and some just take it for granted. To those I would suggest crumpling up a brown paper bag or newspaper, rubbing it together a bunch of times, and see how that works. Another option is just go to a store or station, when nature calls, and finding toilet paper equivalent to mild sand paper. However, this discussion is about the notability of a fairly new company, edited by new(er) editors that may or may not be WP:SPA's, and at least one that has a conflict of interest but maybe more. Wikipedia policy on advertisement and promotion: Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. Advocacy is writing from one point of view which will lack balance. The comments above hint at a likely impossibility of a neutral article. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:50, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Yusuf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear notable, although this is a vary tough case to decide. Draftifying can be considered if this article can be improved. I need more opinions on this. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC) PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS A DIFFERENT AHMED YUSUF THAN THE 1ST NOMINATION!!![reply]

Comment Prior to this being opened by another editor, I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nigeria#Ahmed Yusuf (Gamaliya) (permalink) asking for input. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt As noted, this is not the same subject as the original AfD; this subject what as far as I can tell is a state-level government bureaucrat, and as such, doesn't meet WP:NPOL, nor do the sources support WP:GNG, as they are passing mentions. I'd speedied this before as there were no credible claims of any notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: I agree. I'm not quite sure about salting, though, as I would like to see where this was recreated to the point of salting. Lastly, there is also an SPI going on related to the creator(s) of this article at at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AhmedYusuf123. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unelected statewide apointees are not automatically deemed notable. I find the statement "federal commisioner of Nigeria" misleading, as he is not part of the federal ministers which are presumed notable. HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Autobiography; promotional only; fails WP:NPOL, and keeps being recreated. Of note, this redirect, which was originally another version of the same article (I believe an attempt to get around the original speedy deletion of this article), should also be removed assuming this AfD determines deletion as the outcome. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmertel23: There were some history splits and merges which may not be easy to see by looking at just the page history of Ahmed Yusuf (Gamaliya) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt — Autobiographical article of a non notable office holder who doesn’t satisfy WP:NPOL or any known notability criteria for inclusion. @Ohnoitsjamie, If article creator could be indef blocked for SPA self-promo that would be a great idea as well. Prior now the article had been deleted 6 times. @4thfile4thrank, did you take a look at the talk page of the article creator? Celestina007 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: Can you please close this as delete? Consensus is rather clear. 18:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4thfile4thrank (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@4thfile4thrank: Procedurally, there is an advantage to having this close "normally" as "deleted as a result of a deletion discussion" rather than using a speedy-deletion criteria. Personally, I don't think it would do much harm to give the page author a few more days to surprise me and probably the rest of us by finding sources that would demonstrate that this person does in fact meet WP:N. I don't know if search engines are indexing the article or not, but if they are, they are also indexing the "deletion" and "notability" templates, so it's not "helping" this person's "publicity engine" if it gets indexed. (it's marked "noindex") davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree that it's looking pretty snowy but I'm also not opposed to giving it another day or so. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Em-mustapha 04:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie: Is it now appropriate to close thid? Many days have passed and it is snowing badly. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, and as pointed out by HandsomeBoy, "unelected statewide apointees are not automatically deemed notable".Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its Cinema TV[edit]

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

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Onel5969 with the reason "This appears to be a simple translation snafu. Cinema TV is a valid station, but there is no such thing as "its Cinema TV" - most likely created by computer translater who included the pronoun. Would have redirected, but not really a valid redirect." FASTILY 02:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - easily, as in the reason I gave for speedying it. Not a single valid source can be found. The content of the real article is virtually the same as this article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav0281 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Above account was less than an hour old when they !voted. Obviously unfamiliar with AfD procedure. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misnamed duplicate of Cinema TV; no need for a redirect, nor to merge the 'stiff competition' text. Nate • (chatter) 21:46, 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. Sandstein 09:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Studio 54 Network[edit]

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

Not notable enough Ecomt (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:NRADIO; it has transmitters in multiple Italian regions and originates programming. The article needs a rewrite for poor translation. Raymie (t • c) 08:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appearance can apparently be deceptive. Fails NRADIO from the very beginning. if it verifiably meets through reliable sources. A search and what is on the article (a partyguide source and a dead link) in no way translates "presumed notability" to inherently notable. In fact, there is nothing in the partyguide source to verify any of the information the inline citation indicates but is just a photogallery. The subject fails Notability (media)#Primary criterion and WP:GNG. Otr500 (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amkgp 💬 05:41, 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) 01:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Setting aside the concerns about notability (which I think have merit), I think there are verifiability issues with this article too. A significant portion of it is unsourced and we don't have sufficient support for the claims made. Those sources may well be out there but I haven't seen them/been able to find them. So I'm ok with deleting. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability and verifiability problems. Kolma8 (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undone by Blood[edit]

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

Lack of WP:RS and WP:NFF. Was un-proded immediately without addressing the concerns. As per (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13107028/) WP:TOOSOON applies — Amkgp 💬 15:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – too early for this, per WP:NFF. – bradv🍁 17:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON fails WP:NFF. KylieTastic (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON Donaldd23 (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NFF. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 22:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Strong References: https://tvweb.com/undone-by-blood-tv-series-amc-norman-reedus , https://comicbook.com/tv-shows/news/the-walking-dead-norman-reedus-produce-star-undone-by-blood-tv . — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlashUser (talk • contribs) 22:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think a reasonable alternative may be to shift the focus of the page from the prospective TV show to a page about the comic it will be based up. While not every source in this comic book review aggregate is reliable, there are a few that would be such as Monkeys Fighting Robots and Newsarama. I think that Multiversity Comics should be usable as well?

In any case, I'm going to go ahead and shift the focus of the article if no one has a problem with this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Weak agree with ReaderofthePack. Also note that FlashUser, the article creator, was blocked for sockpuppetry and repeatedly attempted to create a hoax actor [1A] [1B]. I think that the comic is notable, but the television show is not (at least WP:TOOSOON). — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a version ready to move over - if it's preferred, since the article creator was blocked for sockpuppetry and other mischief, I can move it over once the AfD is done and the article deleted per WP:DENY. I don't really mind either way. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undone by Blood (comics) draft discussion
@ReaderofthePack: That sounds alright either way. I suppose if you incorporated material from the original article, it might be preferable to keep the original revision history? If not, then whichever you'd prefer. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] I think I kept a source or two, but ultimately I wrote it all from scratch. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] The draft in question - forgot to link to it! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] @ReaderofthePack: The draft looks good! The AfD is nearly closed (and the draft has no material from the original), so I would wait, delete, and then move the draft. (You can do whatever you want, though!) — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 04:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] ReaderofthePack Yeah your version is indeed notable. Agree with Twassman. — Amkgp 💬 10:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] I made some edits to your draft (added some information to the infobox, corrected a typo, and improved grammar). I hope you don't mind! — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 17:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undone by Blood (comics) draft discussion

@ReaderofthePack: That sounds alright either way. I suppose if you incorporated material from the original article, it might be preferable to keep the original revision history? If not, then whichever you'd prefer. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I kept a source or two, but ultimately I wrote it all from scratch. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The draft in question - forgot to link to it! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack: The draft looks good! The AfD is nearly closed (and the draft has no material from the original), so I would wait, delete, and then move the draft. (You can do whatever you want, though!) — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 04:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ReaderofthePack Yeah your version is indeed notable. Agree with Twassman. — Amkgp 💬 10:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made some edits to your draft (added some information to the infobox, corrected a typo, and improved grammar). I hope you don't mind! — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 17:54, 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) 01:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain, what further comments do you think we need? There's a clear consensus that this subject is not notable, and ReaderofthePack has a draft ready to go about a notable topic by the same name as soon as this is deleted. – bradv🍁 02:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just giving it another chance. I like to do that sometimes.

But, I understand impatience, too. I'm happy to delete it. Have a great holiday! Missvain (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Askill[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only in-depth source in the article or elsewhere is an interview, which does not really count. Edwardx (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Edwardx (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interviews do not add towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There actually does seem to be more in-depth coverage of Askill's work that is not sourced in the article, e.g. Grazia article, article about Topshop's collaboration with him, etc. Combined with the awards Askill has received it does seem that he has quite a bit of notability. It's hard to find good articles on fashion designers through Google searches because the coverage is interspersed with advertising. John Pack Lambert's contribution should be ignored because he has done no research and his contribution is not helpful. Deus et lex (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, some notability, a few awards and a part in an exhibition in a major museum. Kolma8 (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough good coverage such as Vogue and WSJ. A google news search brought up many more, such as GQ, People. and ELLE. There is actually over 10 pages of google news results for his name. I will try to add these sources and improve article. Peter303x (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with @Peter303x:. Enough good coverage. Seems to be within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Alda[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED notability Prisencolin (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor roles as an actress that do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

borderline notability Rajuiu (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not notable for acting, but notable as a director/producer - WP:DIRECTOR criteria 3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of . . . multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." and Out Late and Legs (though they don't have their own wiki articles) are notable specifically because they have multiple independent reviews. All coverage of Alda is going to mention her dad (especially coverage relating to her acting credits which are overwhelmingly on projects related to Alan). WP:INHERITED warns against deleting articles because "she's only someone's daughter/sister" just as much as it argues against keeping articles solely because of inheritance. Samsmachado (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficiently distinct career to justify separate article. Artw (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:36, 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. Sandstein 18:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Book Review[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only coverage is repackaged press releases. Recently recreated after parent article was deleted for similar lack of coverage. czar 22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar 22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar 22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some of the worst attempts at "independent" sourcing I've ever seen. I don't find anything, just link-backs from book websites to reviews from this group. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the references are just samples. under Google News searching for "San Francisco Book Review" there are 214 citations to reviews in the San Francisco Book Review when I looked just now, not insignificant IMHO. Under WP:WEBCRIT it says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." With these multiple citations, I believe this to be the case. If the article is removed, I think it would be worth being a REDIRECT at least since reviews are cited multiple times on Wikipedia itself, perhaps to Media in the San Francisco Bay Area#Magazines. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No amount of coverage from WebWire or PRNewswire will be sufficient. Can you give some examples of actually independent coverage, not just press releases posted by this group? Links like this New Republic piece, which is just a trivial mention describing it as "obscure", aren't sufficient either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added further references in more substantial publications such as the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I added some references for quotes of San Francisco Book Review reviews by notable publishers such as Cambridge University Press, Macmillan Publishers, and Penguin Random House. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Book blurbs on publishers' websites are not significant coverage. None of the article's sources have show any reliable, secondary source depth of interest in the book review publication itself. czar 02:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an entry for the parent company and a REDIRECT would be more appropriate. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The parent company article was also deleted for lacking significant coverage. czar 01:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the sum of its parts is "notable" enough, otherwise see alternative possible REDIRECT above if needed. This may be borderline now, but as time progresses, it could become less borderline. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:19, 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) 01:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with czar and power-enwiki, I can't see how this possibly meets GNG and the sources are simply not adequate to form an article from. MrAureliusR_Talk! 03:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the above from MrAureliusR. Kolma8 (talk) 08:19, 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. Sandstein 18:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tichenor, Kentucky[edit]

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

Looks like an error or conflation of some sort. The GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick. Rennick says that Tichenor's Store is a former name of Cleopatra, Kentucky and that Nuckols, Kentucky was formerly known as Tichenor's Station, and both of those places are in the same county as this. However, Rennick does not mention a place known simply as Tichenor. Pre-GNIS (before 2000 or so) topographic maps show a Liberty School and a Buck Creek Church at the site, but not much else. Newspapers.com brings up only people with the last name Tichenor, and I'm struggling to find anything substantial about a community simply named Tichenor. This is a reference to a Tichenor in a list of railroad stations, but it's unclear if it's this Tichenor or Tichenor Station aka Cleopatra. There's some houses there today, but I'm not seeing any evidence of legally recognized community here. At best, it's just an informal neighborhood. I've been able to find no concrete proof of a WP:GEOLAND pass here. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:24, 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) 01:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nominator's research, this fails WP:GNG. It's also highly doubtful that it passes WP:GEOLAND. Spiderone 11:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No legal recognition, no non-trivial coverage - Does not meet WP:GEOLAND. As per the nominator's research, here's the Rennick reference. I found plenty of coverage for people with the last name of Tichenor, but found very little for a place with the same name. This article was created by User:Vanished user 7b1215e7ef746ac20682e3dbe03f5b84, wmflabs indicates that they created 2,750 articles, 3% of which have been deleted. It might be worth reviewing their other new articles to see if they are notable. Perhaps another WP:TNT is in order? Cxbrx (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Cxbrx - The source used by that user is freely available online, and I've been checking it. Unlike the California ones, most of the Kentucky ones are actually defensible. I'd say around 70% of the Kentucky ones are referred to as communities, so TNT would probably kill a bunch of possibly notable ones. The extent of the issue here is less than that with the CA ones. While with the CA ones, the question is often Was this ever inhabited?, the question with the KY ones is more if a legally recognized, populated place was at the site, or just an informal rural neighborhood. So the sorting for this user's work is a lot more intensive, and I wouldn't recommend TNT as much here. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:48, 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 no consensus. Relisted 4 times (just a wow for that alone), neither the delete or keep !votes are very strong. The last relister noted feel free to prod or re-nominate, but not eligible for Prod, but feel free to re-nominate. That being said, a G7 speedy could be requested by Tristan Surtel, since it appears they have made the only substantial contributions to the article. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Wachenheim III[edit]

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

Last year, I wrote this article about Edgar Wachenheim III, a successful investor who wrote a book, but I now believe it does not pass WP:GNG after familiarizing myself more with the notability guidelines. The press releases and his own book do not confer notability. He does appear in a good number of news articles, but most of the times he is just an investor commenting on companies or the economy and Wachenheim himself is not discussed, which is not significant coverage. Other articles are obituaries and marriage announcements, which do not confer notability either, or articles that mention his name solely because MOMA has named a gallery after him (the "Sue and Edgar Wachenheim III Gallery") and there is some exhibition there. CNBC wrote a profile about him, but this was only because he spoke at their "Delivering Alpha" conference. Value Investor Insight and MOI Global have interviewed him, but these are industry publications about which I could not find a lot. Tristan Surtel (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable investor and writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - his charitable work might make him notable; he's served as an officer on several prominent boards. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As Bearian notes, the subject at least arguably has significant coverage in the connection with their charitable giving. I also found several media reports regarding his more traditional business activities. So, with that in mind, I think this probably meets the GNG and should not be deleted. But I think it's a close call. DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The man is very prominent lifelong investor, served on many corporate/charity/etc boards, currently managing billions, interviewed by Cramer and many other publications, and wrote a book that’s been read across Wall street. He has returns comparable to Warren Buffett (but does not like to give interviews). People on Wall Street are very well aware of his profile and accomplishments. Not to mention his very prominent stature in Northeast philanthropic circles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1002:8B76:E15C:F09C:2F7E:2DFB (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if we can improve the article using whatever other sourcing has been found. If all else fails, feel free to PROD or renominate. Thanks for assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Soman's arguments seem to be uncontested. Sandstein 18:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Democrats (Sweden)[edit]

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

The unpopular democrats... Tiny, insignificant political party which won 1 - one - vote in one of the elections. Fails WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "contested" should not be in the same sentence as "0.01%" Reywas92^Talk 23:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
let's be fair, in other elections it won as many as 32 votes. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Sjö (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... let's not focus solely on the late phase of the party. It had a degree of notability in its earliest stage, as Arbetarlistan which played a role in regrouping left-wing forces, albeit this project lost steam before the 1991 election. At it's peak it had 1,800 members and a TEMO survey showed 26% of voters considered voting for the party ( https://www.marxists.org/svenska/tidskrifter/fi/fi90-3/arbetarlistans_framtid.html , https://www.marxists.org/svenska/tidskrifter/fi/fi91-2/arbetarlistan-tiden_rinner_ut.html ). "I allt pekade partiutvecklingen under 1990 mot att den riksdag som skulle väljas 1991 kunde få ett rekordstort antal partier , sannolikt sex eller sju och möjligen ända upp till nio , om både Arbetarlistan och Ny demokrati når upp till de fyra procenten" ([17]). The Arbetarlistan foundation and its factional conflicts dealt with in book: https://bohogrelius.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/hur-uppkom-arbetarlistan/ https://www.lindelof.nu/vad-ska-man-gora/ , note the quote: "Han tog då initiativ till något helt nytt. Ett riktigt arbetarparti där arbetare skulle dominera. Det blev först en stor succé, men slogs snart sönder av vänstersekteristers och knäppgökar." ("He then took a wholly new initiative. A real workers party which would be dominated by workers. At first it was a great success, but was soon broken into pieces by left sectarians and weirdos"). "Founded in the wake of the two ' lib - lab ' pacts - Social Democrat - Liberal legislative coalitions – on tax reform ( January 1990 ) and austerity ( April 1990 ) , the Arbetarlistan castigated the ' inverted Robin Hood politics ' of robbing the poor [...] Clearly the new party wanted above all to compete with SAP for traditional working - class votes , especially those of the low - paid trade unionists . At the same time , by opposing nuclear power and EC membership , it perhaps hoped to attract an ' eco - socialist ' element . At the polls in September 1991 , the Arbetarlistan platform was indistinguishable in its essentials from those of the Leftist Party and the Greens" (https://books.google.at/books?id=k9SHAAAAMAAJ). At least one later parliamentarian (Ulla Andersson) was a party member ( https://folkbladet.se/nyheter/soderkoping/ulla-andersson-v-motte-partikamrater-5789600.aspx ). Founded in January 1990 per [18] Parts of the party contested jointly with the Left Party in 1991, and thus doesn't appear in electoral results (. https://www.helahalsingland.se/artikel/oppositionsaren-har-varit-forskrackligt-frustrerande ) Kjell Eriksson was the party secretary (https://arbetet.se/2012/10/12/pa-rakorna-vred-sig-plotsligt-vagen/). --Soman (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Soman's comment, there appear to be suitable sources on the subject, they just happen to mostly be in Swedish. This is to be expected since the article is about Swedish politics. They could have won not a single vote in their history as a party and they would still pass WP:GNG per the above. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 03:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:16, 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) 01:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources noted by Soman, satisfies the GNG.--Goldsztajn (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Soman. /Julle (talk) 14:43, 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) 08:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arc Machines[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent sources. All citations are to company website. All external links are associated with the company; those written in trade magazines are written by an employee. Article was started and largely written by a user closely associated with the company, judging by the username. Little to no reliable/secondary/independent coverage online, apart from a few questionable market analysis reports. Brycehughes (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Brycehughes (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:20, 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) 01:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company. These are entirely self provided sources. Google news search only brings up press releases and promotional data companies. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, and What Wikipedia is not as promotional. There is definitely a WP:COI. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:51, 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 redirect to Cool Runnings#Cast. Sandstein 18:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rawle D. Lewis[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR; he's only had one significant role as Junior Bevil in Cool Runnings. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2010-12 ↻ restored, 2008-07 ✗ A7, 2008-04 ✗ PROD

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor who does not meet our inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 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) 01:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cool Runnings, as an WP:ATD. Not sure how significant his role was in Hybrids, but I don't think it was crucial enough to nudge him over the edge of WP:NACTOR. Redirect to his most significant performance.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Going with the keeps here. Improve the article, consider other options if all else fails, and in the end you can always AfD again. Missvain (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MetaMask[edit]

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

Sources talk about crypto but not the subject. No WP:GNG Ch1p the chop (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are 7 sentences so far and 9 sources. Majority of sources have name in title or focus on subject/events related to subject. If your blanket argument is that all sources only have plainly trivial mention of the subject, that would be a plainly weak argument – more elaboration needed. Also, it only took 2 hours from creation to nomination for deletion. Where's the WP:RUSH? The answer shouldn't be WP:TEARDOWN, even if only one source was plainly trivial in your opinion, why throw the baby out with the WP:BATHWATER? ^{hidden lemon} (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crypto products are a dime a dozen (sorry for the pun!) and nothing suggests that this one is particularly significant. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, making such a claim would clearly indicate a lack of experience or knowledge in this subject. Secondly, that’s not a valid argument as to why an article shouldn’t be on Wikipedia — your opinion on what is or isn’t significant is not a criteria for notability. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 09:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Hidden Lemon: why is is so clear? I don't see anything controversial about that statement. How much knowledge does one need to note how many wallets are out there? Wikipedia already has articles for all kinds of failed cryptocurrencies, why do we need articles for wallets also? We agreed to delete the article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Core, which is a much more notable wallet than this one. When Bitcoin first appeared, node and wallet was one application. But the node also defines how the network behaves, so they are not separable. This is why we deleted the article on Bitcoin Core, which is much more notable than MetaMask. Bitcoin.org has a list of bitcoin wallets: [19], how many of these do you think deserve their own article? Software changes a lot, I don't think Wikipedia will ever be able to have decent articles on them, and it will be almost impossible to find good sources. The fact that MetaMask doesn't enforce consensus rules makes it just another REST frontend to a centralized API, just like pretty much any other browser plugin. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Ysangkok: I actually don't think most other wallets would warrant having its own article, aside from potentially Bitcoin Core (thanks for the link, will look through that AfD more). At first glance the outcome of merging, rather than outright deleting, Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin makes perfect sense given the inseparability of the wallet/node client. However, I don't see how that would be a precedent to consider in this case from a notability standpoint. Yes, Bitcoin Core is probably more notable than MetaMask but that's hard to gauge since it's not a standalone object of interest. On top of that, like you pointed out, there are several popular implementations of BTC wallets out there to choose from, which only dilutes the notoriety of each. The difference here with MetaMask on the Ethereum side of things is that MetaMask has been the dominant application for interacting with the blockchain virtually since its inception (note: citation needed). While the reasons for why that's the case should definitely be included in the article (if you've got some sources and more knowledge regarding your REST API frontend comment, would be a good section to add), that doesn't negate its notability generally. The additional web3/dApp browsing component of many ETH wallets gives them much more exposure to end users and therefore more direct coverage in mainstream sources than the more dev-oriented BTC clients. The Ethereum analog for Bitcoin Core would be GETH which would most likely not have enough notability for a dedicated article. Anecdotally, for ETH, DeFi, NFT, etc. users and apps, MetaMask had nearly become a genericised trademark for Web3 extensions/dApp browsers before more competitors recently started gaining traction in different niches. Side note: according to the Chrome Web Store, the MetaMask extension has over 1 million users which by itself is substantial evidence of notability I'd think. The only real alternative to rival MetaMask, AFAIK, was probably Trust Wallet for the mobile app browser (which fell to the wayside after issues with app store policies and MetaMask's own mobile apps later on). For better or for ill, that's its main claim to notability that is distinct from the example of Bitcoin wallets. I would disagree that it's hard to find good sources for MetaMask, I have saved more than what I've already cited in the article so far because they don't fit for what statements I've written or already cited from different sources. I can't imagine I'd find nearly as many reliable sources on any other wallet for any other blockchain (again, with the potential exception of Bitcoin Core). Oh, and to answer your first question, it's not a controversial statement in itself but rather it suggests an unfamiliarity with what MetaMask even is (beyond a "crypto product"), and thus, for the reasons I've already stated, would indicate an insufficient understanding of this subject area to make a generic and sweeping claim of significance or notability within the context of this AfD forum. In the end however, when it comes to policies and guidelines I don't believe this article, even in this sparse early form, goes against anything related to notability. Though I'm glad to have this discussion, @Ch1p the chop's short and (dare I say) obviously false argument for creating this AfD is the only one attempting to claim it doesn't outright meet notability guidelines. Unless there are any substantive reasons or arguments with sufficient backing provided, outside of the generalized, opinion-based discussion regarding prevalence and comparisons like we are having now, I can't see why this article would qualify for deletion; there's been no WP:RS, WP:POV, or any other challenges here. Do point out any non-adherence to certain policies or standards if I'm missing something though (I am new to Wikipedia editing). Also, let me know if you or anyone else would want to contribute to the article, I didn't intend to be the only one and I'm sure others would have more specific knowledge they could share. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 06:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No need to apologise for the pun MrsSnoozyTurtle. Everyone loves a good pun. I think the problem is there's no additional subject-specific critera for companies and the notability bar is set a little higher than it is for other subjects to avoid system gaming. In the interests of good faith, WP:NCORP doesn't make this clear enough but judged against WP:ORGCRIT my reasoning should hopefully seem clearer.Ch1p the chop (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ch1p the chop: Thanks for expanding on your thinking. Still though, your original claim was that it doesn't meet WP:GNG, so I don't see why it would be necessary to also look at WP:ORGCRIT when that is just a stricter version of WP:GNG – unless your opinion has changed on GNG not being met. Regardless, I would still say that both guidelines are met, am I wrong? If yes, how am I wrong? If you could point out specifically how the sum of the sources fail to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:ORGCRIT, then maybe we can get closer to consensus here. If you still think that WP:GNG is lacking as originally stated, how? Your reasoning still isn't too clear to me given your first statement on this AfD is demonstrably false and now wish to raise that bar by essentially eyeballing the added height. Help me understand your position, what is it that I'm missing? Side Note: I'm unequivocally in favor of sharing more puns
    ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 22:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly a WP:MILL piece of software in the grand scheme of things as reflected in the articles current content and all the refences from what I can tell are passing, brief mentions. So this clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG since nothing addresses it directly and in-depth. Adamant1 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Adamant1: Clearly? Lol, in the "grand scheme of things", all software is WP:MILL, but for our context I would just redirect to my reply to Ysangkok above. Your reasoning for it being non-notable is invalid according to WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST. May I remind you all this AfD was created just 2 hours after article creation. Additionally, I think perhaps you should read the sources and the context of the statements they are cited to... "all the refences from what I can tell are passing, brief mentions." Literally two of the sources clearly have "MetaMask" in the title while most the rest give significant focus on it or events involving it. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 03:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - See references 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10 for something that addresses it directly.
    See references 2 and 3 for something that addresses it directly and in-depth.
    ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 03:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just an FYI, I read through the prior discussion and knew when I voted deleted that you would continue bludgeoning things. Claiming that this should be kept because all software is run of the mill "clearly indicates a lack of experience or knowledge in this subject." There's obviously a difference between certain cryptocurrency technology, some are more run of the mill then others (like this is one), and I'm not going to get in a debate about it. That said, I was speaking singularly in respect to the content of the article and sources that are available. Both in the article and from what I was able to find and read through. Ultimately, your argument that I voted delete simply because I didn't read the sources and not because they fail WP:GNG is especially weak and lacking in respect for the time people, including me, put into this. Everything amounts to "they exist and have a browser extension." Which there is extremely run of the mill and there s absolutely nothing notable about. I could really care less if the article was created two days or a week ago. The fact is that nothing about MetaMask WP:GNG, WP:NORG, or any other notability guideline. You've had plenty of time find sources to prove otherwise, but wasted it spinning your wheels arguing and that's totally on your on. Period. Maybe other people will disagree with me and that's fine. The good thing is that we can have different opinions, but there's nothing more to discuss about it as far as I'm concerned. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Adamant1: You're making some large jumps to conclusions here. I did not "claim" that all software is run of the mill, that's ridiculous. I certainly did not use that "claim" as argument to keep. I did not make any argument or assumption whatsoever regarding your motives. You're creating a straw man, I don't think anyone else would rationally summarize my arguments as "they exist and have a browser extension", nor is it disrespectful to challenge yours; see WP:ALLARGUMENTS. Ok, now to the actual issue of notability. You keep saying its WP:Not notable with such a cavalier, matter-of-fact attitude but only make WP:VAGUEWAVES at policies without actually discussing the sources specifically. I've asked others to explain to me specifically why sources do not meet notability guidelines, I haven't got any answer yet. I just gave you the specific references which address what you claim none of them do, yet you've ignored that and resorted to agitated reactionism. To be fair, your point on WP:BLUDGEON is duly noted, though (per the aforementioned WP:ALLARGUMENTS) if not for my insistence on having a full discussion regarding the sources/notability, this would be a one-sided AfD and lacking depth. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 08:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm going to ignore the rest of your message because it's needlessly personal and off-topic. That aside though, no one here needs to have a "full discussion regarding the sources/notability" to whatever your standards of a "full discussion" is just so you won't WP:BLUDGEON the process anymore. Both me and other people have been more then clear about why we think the article isn't notable. It's not on us if you don't find our explanations "detailed" enough. I was pretty clear that all the sources are passing mentions. None of the sources have an in-depth discussion of the subject of the article or any details about it. There's literally no way to have a "fuller discussion" about this, because there's nothing in the sources on the topic to discuss. Let alone anything detailed about it in any of them. Period, end of story. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed. And I'm not impressed by Hidden Lemon's WP:BLUDGEON and lack of respect for other editors opinions here. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        What? Is this a joke? @Adamant1 @MrsSnoozyTurtle, You are honestly gonna sit there with a straight face and tell me all the sources, including these ones, contain only passing mentions of the subject??
        https://mashable.com/article/metamask-ios-android/
        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-02/metamask-s-blockchain-mobile-app-opens-doors-for-next-level-web
        https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/02/google-play-caught-hosting-an-app-that-steals-users-cryptocurrency/
        https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2020/01/03/google-lifts-ban-ethereum-wallet-app-metamask-mining-cryptocurrency/
        ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 10:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Here's another one with "just a passing mention" that I hadn't even referenced.
        https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/06/chrome_malicious_extensions/
        ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 11:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of multiple times I said "I don't have anything else to say about it" do you not understand and seem to have no respect for? People have different opinions about this. That's life. Seriously, get over it and stop pinging me. Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine I won’t ping you, but please refrain from diverting other discussions by adamantly peddling demonstrably false notions as “opinion”. This isn’t about opinions anyway: WP:NMO. On top of that, the audacity to repeatedly label me as disrespectful for questioning your arguments is not only insulting, it’s disruptive to the discussion process — à la WP:BLUDGEON. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 20:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regarding Hidden Lemon's question "What? Is this a joke?". No it is not. And please don't misrepresent my position, that has nothing to do with my reasoning. I think it's a bit rich that Hidden Lemon is trying to play the victim here, given that this whole sorry chapter began with their attempt to undermine my judgement. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - ok.
        ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 19:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the article is brief, but well-sourced. Wikipedia core policy is verifiability and the fact that the MetaMask software seems to have played a role in the emerging technology of blockchain for several years now, as is documented by the sources. Clearly meets the notability criteria for an article to exist about it, and I see nothing that would appear non-neutral. N2e (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: The fact that it is a cryptocurrency article means we should be more critical. This is already encoded in policy: we have strict sanctions on sources like CoinDesk. You claim that blockchain is "emerging", but this is not an objective fact. Everybody affiliated with cryptocurrency has an interest in claiming so, but it is not a verifiable statement, and therefore not relevant to the discussion. And before you mention growing market caps: no, that is not a proof that something is "emerging". --Ysangkok (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced which makes the AfD reason useless. It also meets GNG to me, and it's not like its a new cryptocurrency wallet with 100 people using it, it has a good amount users, so it's notable verifiability from the refs it has. New York Times and Bloomberg are to me some of the most reliable and notable sources. All this arguing and accusing people of "diverting" and such, is not going to get us closer to a consensus at all. It's just going to create more problems. Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The subject meets WP:GNG and is easily verifiable, which is good enough for me. My concern is that this seems, as mentioned, run of the mill, with nothing that really stands out. Perhaps more fleshing out of the article is needed to properly demonstrate notability. The number of users of the subject is not an indicator of notability. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 20:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. Article is discussed in depth in several reliable sources. I rarely say this, but it was inappropriate to bring this article to AfD. The article was nominated just over two hours after creation, but already at that stage had sufficient cites to reliable sources talking in detail about the subject. User:Ch1p the chop, please do not nominate any other articles for deletion until you better understand how to judge notability. I have looked through your edit history, and you are nominating too many articles that are clearly notable. I suggest, as you are a new user, that you join in with some deletion discussions for at least six months to better understand our deletion criteria before making any further nominations. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 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) 01:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Like Willbb234, I think this article probably meets WP:GNG because there is significant media coverage based on the current sources. But the sources themselves are pretty mundane and arguably run-of-the-mill stuff (e.g., this app got in trouble with an app store!). So, ultimately, I think it should probably stay but it's a close call and I could go either way. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG based on sources such as Newsweek, Mashable, NY Tines, ZDNet, etc. What else is needed to justify significant coverage? I know that Crypto is looked as spam by many Wiki admins, but it is time it gets to be an acceptable topic, specially when they have significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC) BTW, why was the AFD renewed anyway??? there was clear consensus on the first round that it should be kept!!! 5 Keeps and 2 deletes![reply]

Newsweek, NY Times (see below), and ZDNet are mentions. Coin (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reiterating what the other Keep's have said above. Metamask is extremely notable, certainly enough to satisfy WP:GNG and has received much press in WP:RS. People unfamiliar with cryptocurrency or Ethereum reviewing this article may not be aware, but this is one of the most used applications/pieces of software. Metamask is also notable because it is also the first (that I know of) and most widely used wallet that utilizes web3 so that users can use their cryptocurrencies to directly interact with websites, which is a novel technology. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is also related to Uniswap (where Metamask is used often). The Uniswap article is also fighting against deletion as well despite having press in Bloomberg, Forbes and more. HocusPocus00 (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the current version, five references are just mentions [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] and not mentioned in one [25].

Why The NY Times is not significant coverage:

The NY Times had an article about the cryptocurrency bubble. They visited the headquarters of ConsenSys which is in Brooklyn. MetaMask was made by ConsenSys. These are the three sentences where MetaMask appears:

"What makes them valuable is that they’ve been generated exclusively for me, by a software tool callAed MetaMask."

"It’s not meant to be a real currency; it’s meant to be a pseudo-currency inside this world.” Dan Finlay, a creator of MetaMask, echoes Dixon’s argument."

"They support developers creating new apps and tools for the platform, one of which is MetaMask, the software that generated my Ethereum address."

MetaMask is only mentioned because it's the wallet of the company HQ they visited.

The other six references are:

CNET notes "There are many wallet options available, and we have not comprehensively tested any of these. As such, we cannot recommend any of them." And much of it seems to be taken from the wallets' websites.

Ars Technica is about a fake mobile app when MetaMask didn't yet have one.

Mashable and Bloomberg seem to be hype articles for the mobile app, with info coming from MetaMask.[26]

To me the The Next Web coverage is less than ideal. "PSA: MetaMask reveals your Ethereum address to sites you visit, here’s how to hide it" "Google lifts ban on Ethereum wallet app it thought was mining cryptocurrency"

Underwhelming coverage, nothing close to a "covered in NY Times" since that one doesn't count and The4lines and Expertwikiguy mentioned that as if there was actually something significant in the NY Times. Coin (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- @Coin: I think you are misinterpreting "Significant Coverage" under WP:GNG. Of course the NY Times is going to talk a lot more about a more popular topic like Bitcoin than a piece of piece of subsidiary cryptocurrency software like MetaMask. That does not mean MetaMask isn't notable. Significance is contextual. Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:EMSC are helpful here. Also, CNET, ArsTechnica and of course Bloomberg are all reliable sources per WP:RSP. They don't need to all be NY Times cites. HocusPocus00 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Coin: All of those points you made have issues so I don't think it's worth enumerating why/how on each of them. So I'll just say generally, notability isn't a literal function of how many times the name of the subject appears when doing a ctl+f search. The words in between, i.e. the context, are just as (if not more) important. If an RS covers a company and interviews its founders, mention of that company's most well-known product... you believe that to be trivial?
  More important point regarding the "other six references": it sounds like you're arguing against the reliability of the sources themselves and/or straining to cherrypick the references to death, because some of your summaries of sources actually explain why a source is notable rather than not. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 04:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYT, Ars Technica and Bloomberg pieces seem to meet the requirements of GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the points made by Coin have some merit, however. I'd also questioned the substantial coverage of the NYT times piece, but it does discuss it in a few paragraphs. Are the sources such that it's possible to write an article on this which complies with our core content policies? I'd say yes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:25, 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 redirect to Mustafa II. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afife Kadın[edit]

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

The article is entirely unsourced, not to mention that it was originallly created under another name and then moved to its current title without a clear reason. The content appears to be original research and the user who created this page asked me personally on my talk page to put it up for deletion and said, "there are much confusions whether she was the same woman mentioned by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu in her letters as it proposed but not proven yet." I think that simply shows that the current info is not backed by any sources and could be misleading. That is why the article needs to be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 05:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known historical figure. Quitede (talk) 21:19, 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) 01:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - not enough coverage to show independent notability. Redirect to Mustafa II. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:16, 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 redirect to Murad III. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Şemsiruhsar Hatun[edit]

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

The subject doesn't appear to be notable on her own. The article's creator who has worked on various articles related to the Ottoman dynasty personally asked me to put it up for deletion. Sources do not contain any information about her background whatsoever, and the only thing known about her is that she had a daughter with the sultan. Based on its current status it doesn't meet the criteria we have for establishing notability (notability is not inherited or passed on to individuals by their relatives). The page can either be deleted or redirected to the article about her husband. Keivan.f^Talk 05:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep I see this article as an example of what Wikipedia does best, bring to light interesting historical figures and offer stub pages that others can then improve and dive into future research. I appreciate that work was initially done to surface the two books here by Leslie Pierce and M. Çağatay Uluçay that describe this person, perhaps there are more! I'd like to see more effort to surface more sources -- perhaps this is of interest to more Turkish-language editors -- rather than deletion / subsumption into the article about her husband. I'm not sure of what relevance the conversation that Keivan.f reports having with the article's initial creator has to this AfD. Shameran81 (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt there is more information to add. Like many of her fellow Ottoman family female members, this one is probably but a name on a waqf deed, the one cited in the article.--Phso2 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect Phso2 is likely to be right. I have just voted on another AFD for another Hatun lady. I suspect that members of the harem of successive sultans will be relatively obscure and only known from passing references, such as this. I wonder if the answer is to have a series of articles on the harem of <sultan>, into which such articles may be merged. This would avoid articles on sultans becoming overloaded with genealogical detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:31, 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) 01:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murad III. Not enough notability for a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wells Fargo Building (Augusta)[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Article does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and the article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 15:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and per nom. Not a historic nor important bank building. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian and nom Spiderone 11:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - a skyscraper that was formerly the tallest building in the city, I have had trouble with a WP:BEFORE search due to geoblockers on US websites, but found [27] quickly after striking out on "Wells Fargo Building." The building has also had a number of different names per [28]. I've contributed to a number of building articles over the years, and an archival search should bring up plenty of information. We should probably also move the title of the building to reflect its current usage, and if we can't keep this, we should at least merge it to the university page. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just about at my limit with WP:BEFORE (can't access local webpages due to geoblocking, can't access historical newspapers due to not being in the database I have access to) but I've added a couple sources that I could access to the page, including a mention in the Atlanta newspaper that this building was being built in Augusta. It's not a WP:MILL building, and I fully expect there's additional coverage out there that I'm not able to access for various reasons. SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. The building is already included in the Augusta, Georgia article. Maybe article guardians will allow some expansion of the section? Note: The building is not a "skyscraper" by current accepted definition. Typically a Mid-rise building would be 5 to 12 floors and a high-rise would be 13 floor and above. A "skyscraper" would be defined as a building at least 492 feet with 40 floors, then there is "supertall" and "megatall" skyscrapers. The building would not be considered a skyscraper even if 100 meters were used as a minimum criteria. The Lamar Building, at 165' (50 m), fit the 19th century definition of skyscraper but would actually now be a high-rise "once considered a 'skyscraper". I can certainly be sympathetic to SportingFlyer being "just about at my limit". Everybody wants to now get a person to subscribe (for more targeted advertisement), or charge for just about any information, which makes Wikipedia even more important now days. However, the creation of permanent stubs to grow the encyclopedia should be weighed against if the content would be better suited in an already existing article. Otr500 (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: We just had a discussion over at the skyscraper page about the definition of skyscraper where we changed the lede to reflect there is no "current accepted definition." Also, I literally cannot access the sites I need to save this one because of geoblockers/lack of online access to the newspapers which would have covered it, not because the resources are paywalled, so I can't even say "here are the sources I can't access." Its inclusion in the Augusta, Georgia article is just a list and does not include any of the information about its architectural or historical importance to the city of Augusta (as I've WP:HEYed in the article, this was in the van der Rohe style, as noted by Georgia Tech's Georgia Encyclopaedia.) I've added a few more additional sources just now and identified mentions of the building in articles such as [29] which I can't access. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 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) 01:30, 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. A redirect can be separately created. Sandstein 18:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eftandise Hatun[edit]

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

The article relies heavily on a single source, yet the other problem is that the only thing that it discusses is her ancestry. A user who has been long working on articles related to the Ottoman dynasty - and happens to be the article's creator - asked me on my talk page to start a deletion discussion for this article as the current info is not enough for having a standalone page about this subject. I also agree because notability is not inherited and this person might not meet the criteria that we have for establishing notability. That is why I decided to put it up for discussion so that the community could decide whether it could stay or not. I think redirecting it to the article about her husband could also be a reasonable option. Keivan.f^Talk 05:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably redirect -- In monogamous Europe, we would certainly regard the spouse of a monarch as notable. IN this case we are dealing with a monarch who probably had a harem of spouses. The whole article seems to derive from the interpretation of a single title deed, which is nit enough for a stand-alone article. The problem is that the redirect target is likely hardly to mention the subject, which might instead point to merge or keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively repurpose into article on the harem of her husband. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:32, 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) 01:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the 2nd time this has been up for deletion.Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 14:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above, lack of substantial sources, and the article's creator requesting deletion(!). jp×g 04:39, 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. Probably a borderline case, but in the end only one person wants to keep this. Sandstein 18:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mariposita, California[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NGEO and WP:NTEMP in that it seems to have only been a temporary "camp" of no real historical significance or repute. There are also no citations or sources and a simple search yields nothing. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 19:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment As a rule we have not considered mining camps to be notable per se, but this might be a borderline exception. I am finding several references to events in this camp, but it could also be argued that the events themselves are not terribly notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak Delete. No post office. Confirmed that it does not appear in the GNIS. Trivial coverage in newspapers.com: [30], [31], [32]. As this location is not legally recognized it does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND. Gudde has a trivial mention that has text that is close to what is in the article. There is only trivial coverage, so it does not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cxbrx. I turned up the same newspapers.com coverage, as well as a few two-sentence mentions in county histories. WP:GEOLAND is not met, and there doesn't seem to be enough for WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon
Keep Thanks to the articles provided above by Cxbrx we have a location for the place, in 1925 in The Fresno Morning Republican: "about 7 miles south of Mariposa" and in the first article a reason for its notability as one of the places targeted by the nativist American miners in 1850 and one that resisted the 1850 law that covered their cupidity. We also see in the last article that the place was a well enough known location to readers of a paper in 1866 to be used to locate another place 5 miles downstream where a Frenchman died, when a bank fell on him. Presumably he was placer mining the stream.

comments I think this article should be kept as these gold camps which were not "official" were large and significant places at the time. Their suppression wrought all sorts of economic havoc and provoked vengeful criminality throughout the state in the 1850's, (like that of the gang of Joaquin Murrieta and other foreigners), as papers, accounts and books by people who lived there at the time attest. I also think we may find Mariposita on an early Geogical Survey Map if they reported on it in 1925. Asiaticus (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment A pertinent paper is Cosgrave, G., 1942. A Diplomatic Incident on the Little Mariposa. California Historical Society Quarterly, 21(4), pp.358-362. Paul H. (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment There are four hits in the California History search including the above paper for Mariposita. There is another hit, Mitchell (1949), in the California History search for Little Mariposa, which is another name for Mariposita. California History should also be searched for other California locales being considered for deletion. Paul H. (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Good point about searching the California Historical Society Quarterly. Fortunately JSTOR has copies and I have access to JSTOR via Wikipedia. I added the Cosgrave citation to the article. The title of the article includes "Little Mariposa" and my primitive understanding of Spanish suggests that "Mariposita" is Spanish for "Little Mariposita". However, this feels like WP:OR to me. Interestingly, Cosgrave states that Little Mariposa Creek was about four miles south of Mariposa, whereas [33] states that Mariposita is seven miles south of Mariposa. I chose to include both references in the article (teach the controversy!). Mitchell mentions "the Little Mariposa", which sounds like a reference to a creek, not to a settlement, so I chose not to add it. Also, I find Mitchell's references to be trivial.

I searched JSTOR for the other California locations that are up for deletion and because many of the names are very common, I had little success. I did find a few passing references for "Stove pipe wells" and "Stovepipe wells", but nothing really compelling. I'll add JSTOR to the list of sources that I check for AfDs.

It does seem that the Mitchell article is one non-trivial reference for Mariposita, so I'm changing from Delete to Weak Delete. If there was another non-trivial article, I'd go with Keep. Cxbrx (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment On the milage discrepancy, a look at the topographical map of the area provides the answer. If the creek is followed it is 7 miles, if it is as the crow flies its 4 miles.Asiaticus (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Anikey[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non notable actress who fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR & lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up nothing concrete. There are currently two sources used in the article. The first source used appears to be a CV bank where anyone can upload their achievements whilst the second source used in the article is an interview hence isn’t independent of the subject hence both have no value to WP: GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page shall not be removed. Notability and significance was confirmed by adding more sources, a list of films, and the national awards. Partizan Kuzya (talk) 20 November 2020

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Belarussian WP has an article on Anikey (see here), unsure whether this helps? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

→Thank you! I will work on linking it to Russian and English WP. --Partizan Kuzya (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian WP and Belarusian Tarashkevitsa WP were linked to Anikey's English WP page. Partizan Kuzya (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article says everything twice, a very bad sign. It also looks like much of the work listed is student work, although it is not clear from the article. It does not appear that this person satisfies WP:NACTOR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

→User:Ssilvers Can you clarify what do you mean by "student work"? Translation or her work? Anikey is an actress who acted in 30+ movies in the past 17 years, besides being one of the leading actresses of the most prestigious and oldest national theater in Belarus. She is a recepient of 2 National Awards granted by the president of the country. She made a significant contribution to the Belarusian theater.

Can you specify what is repeated twice?

It feels that you made your decision by skimming through the article. I undertand that the topic might be unfamiliar to you. The reason why the article was flagged in the begin, I believe, is because it was published incomplete. Her work and awards were added after, as well as more reliable sources in the Bibliography section. Partizan Kuzya (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here indicates she has had even one significant role in a notable production, let alone the multiple such roles required for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this completely fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR; the sources do not establish notability Spiderone 20:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I suspect there is either a lack of understanding of the non-English culture among the reviewers or bias against non-English performers. It is not inclusive of Wikipedia to write only about American cinematography. To clarify: Bibliography contains multiple inteviews of Anikey on National TV, in the national magazine founded by the Ministry of Culture, the oldest Belarusian newspaper, the post-Soviet mass newspaper. As such, the Anikey article complies with WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Partizan Kuzya (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Svetlana Anikey is one of the leading and well known acresses of Belarus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sombrik (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide in this AFD reliable sources that shows subject of our article satisfies GNG or could you show us which criterion from NACTOR subject satisfies? Without which merely saying she is notable isn’t a valid argument. Celestina007 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

→Thank you. Will do. In about two weeks (short on time right now). I want to translate Kureichik and Zhuk beforehand to show you more connections of Anikey to the current most contributing Belarusian films and film directors. Partizan Kuzya (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's coverage of Svetlana Anikey by two major news outlets of Belarus: BelTA and tut.by stating that she is a prominent Belarusian actress: https://www.belta.by/culture/view/svetlana-anikej-ne-nuzhno-zatsiklivatsja-na-razocharovanijah-304299-2018/ https://news.tut.by/culture/692068.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sombrik (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you provided directly above this comment talks about a movie and mentions her but doesn’t discuss her with in-depth significant coverage as required by GNG

The second source is an interview hence is of no cogent value to GNG as it isn’t independent of her & GNG requires “in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so in all we still have nothing. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others, she doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Yilloslime (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is unfortunate SYSTEMIC BIAS here. Compare, this article nominated for deletion of Svetlana Anikey (female; artist; recognized by her country - 2 national awards; unknown culture - Belarus; all reviewers who voted "Delete" are unfamiliar with the culture) with Peter Vyncke (male; businessman; no recognition on the national level; popular culture - Belgium/Flanders; no "Delete" votes; the only 2 votes are "Keep" votes from one ~Belgian reviewer and a page creater [Dutch speaker, the language of Flanders/Belgium]). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Vyncke. Partizan Kuzya (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first inclusion criteria for entertainers in Wiki:Notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) says that the person "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Svetlana Anikey was in more than 60 films, worked at one the biggest Belarusian theaters for 18 years and is a recipient of the First National Theater Award for Best Actress, Top Actor's Award of All-Polish Festival of Contemporary Drama and Francysk Skaryna Medal. I believe this should be enough to prove her notability. Sombrik (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is a BLP and the article has been expanded since many of the comments were made; whether those additions are enough for notability is another question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like this article needs cleanup to make notability more clear rather than deleting. Artw (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Partizan Kuzya, Sombrik and Artw. This actress has been performing for 20 years and her entry appears in three other Wikipedias. She has acted in numerous plays, has credits in 52 films and won three major acting awards. Her English Wikipedia entry has 13 inline cites and ten links under section header "Bibliography", including an IMDb link with film credits. More than sufficient for retention of entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I read her BY and RU articles and she is a decorated artist in Belarus. The article needs some work though, but no reason to delete it. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Anikey is a prominent Belarusian actress with an extensive filmography; she has been a recipient of two national awards. These factors satisfy the criterion of notability. --ChickenLady1984 (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first, she passes WP:NACTOR, since she's had multiple significant roles, Mortal Kombat Series (TV), Crystal (film), Hotel for Cinderella (TV), the national theater award, while not having an article on English WP, appears to be a pretty big thing in Belarus. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:13, 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Lee[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough (though I will admit his performance as Mr. Klein in Are You Being Served? was memorable). Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a review from Billboard and a reference to Laughter in the Air: An Informal History of British Radio Comedy (1979). There's also coverage in The Golden Age of Radio: An Illustrated Companion (1985). — Toughpigs (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right, that passes WP:BASIC. I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 13:01, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Stratton[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Cannot find any significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, and did not have a significant college football career to pass WP:NCOLLATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet any of the notability criteria mentioned in the nomination. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find sufficient sources to show notability Suonii180 (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. And the coverage I found (e.g., this and this) is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG. If more substantial coverage is found, will reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:46, 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. Sandstein 18:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Knight coaching tree[edit]

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

Mostly original research, does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Coaching trees are typically trivial and may not even be included in coach articles. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A coaching tree is not a thing here. Reywas92^Talk 05:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if any of it is worth keeping, merge that part back into Bob Knight from whence it came. →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NBA is against coaching trees. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and merge into the Bob Knight article (if it isn't there already). Rikster2 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, lots of OR, and as per Sabbatino and the NBA project.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 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.