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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erik J. Berg[edit]

Erik J. Berg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Am AfD'ing this on behalf of the ip, 2001:569:74D2:A800:CCDD:EC60:A7AC:7923. The gist of their request was, "The article Erik J. Berg was created back in 2009, and it has no citation sources at all. I have remove portions of unsourced content that includes removing the date of birth and birthplace the article still has no citation sources. Erik J. Berg was ineligible for proposed deletion for the second time. Now for my request could put the article Erik J. Berg into "Articles for deletion" for the 2nd nomination. On the 1st nomination at the Erik J. Berg the result on the 1st nomination was a "Keep". Now could you put Erik J. Berg into the articles for deletion for the 2nd nomination at the articles for deletion and unsourced content at the Erik J. Berg article and it does not meet the WP:GNG for my request." (the full text can be found at my talk page) I would like to point out that my !vote will go below. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a dupe vote, since I am not the true nominator of the article. Doesn't qualify as per WP:NACTOR, and a WP:BEFORE did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only kept by default because of lack of consensus before. Lacks major roles required for WP:NACTOR and coverage for WP:GNG. Not an actor that warrants inclusion in a general encyclopaedia. Spiderone 10:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a single resource to meet notability criteria. WP:GNG fail. Duncan079 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW. A single Redshirt_(stock_character) role and a few cameos does not add up to notability. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infopreneur[edit]

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

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

Who doesn't love to identify opportunities for creating enterprising information-based businesses by identifying knowledge deficiency situation and sell target-based information products and services? A neologism and a portmanteau about affiliate marketing (which ought to be three strikes already) with no sources worth phoning home about, and I couldn't find any with a web search. Wew lad. jp×g 22:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. jp×g 22:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. jp×g 22:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. jp×g 22:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. jp×g 22:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The term is used in several news articles, lots of google book hits, including some where the term is part of the title and/or subtitle. Jeepday (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It has received a lot of coverage, especially in the news, books and scholar. Sources 1, 3 and 4 seem to be reliable. I even found reliable sources which talk about the term: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep One of those odd newfangled catch words that I would expect to see in a dictionary these days. Has coverage from a couple reliable sources. Duncan079 (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in support of the research above, and having found similar results when I did a Scholar and News search. It does seem to be a term that should be available for a user to find here at the encyclopedia.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Car Craft Engineering[edit]

Car Craft Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This was a short lived kit car manufacturer. They didn't design cars, they built someone else's to order. They built 32 cars in total. There are some references to auto magazines which no doubt are true, but I can't read them. There is a German language article which says the same, but also gives some pictures of the bright yellow boxy kit cars. A google search didn't return anything useful. I don't think this company passes WP:N. We've previously deleted one of their cars Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarCraft Cyclone Desertarun (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not finding anything to support notability, the article claims 21 + 32 cars built, in two different models. Jeepday (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ((U}Jeepday)). Not all car makers are notable. They appear to have made fewer than 70 cars. That's cars, not models. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources provided, I assume nominator already did a search per the requirements so i Would agree that it needs to be deleted. Peter303x (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kwasi Busumbru[edit]

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

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

Non notable businessman and politician who fails to satisfy WP:ANYBIO & WP:NPOL respectively. A before search turns up nothing concrete to show he satisfies GNG in the very least. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he satisfies a basic Wikipedia notability criteria when he decided to run for office in the just ended Ghana 2020 elections but got disqualified. He has received some significant coverage in Ghanaian media because of that.Owula kpakpo (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Owula kpakpo can you provide a link to Wikipedia policy that supports your statement "he satisfies a basic Wikipedia notability criteria when he decided to run for office" Jeepday (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletet Unless I am missing something is not notable per WP:NPOL "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability," I don't see anything about the candidates disqualification that would make them notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NPOL and WP:MILL. A common candidate knocked off the ballot. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per rationale by nom, fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:24, 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 redirect to Introduction to the heaviest elements. Missvain (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to superheavy elements[edit]

Introduction to superheavy elements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It is redundant, and almost identical in content (diff), to Introduction to the heaviest elements, which is what is transcluded into articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as duplicate, though it doesn't take an AFD to just redirect. Reywas92^Talk 22:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Introduction to the heaviest elements. I was unaware of this duplicate, and there is no need to keep it around. However, deleting it entirely might also delete a potentially useful redirect (as it formerly was the title of the transcluded section and is still useful in searches). ComplexRational (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per ComplexRational. Worth asking: why did R8R create both [9] [10]? And: is not "Superheavy" more scientific to "heaviest"? -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Introduction to the heaviest elements or delete per above. Both article should have better, less essay like, titles.   // Timothy :: talk  03:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per ComplexRational. Double sharp (talk) 16:41, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Riedy[edit]

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

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

Non-notable actor with only a single role which might be viewed as significant. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability includes his role as Arthur Griffin in Big Time Rush. He also voices Mike Haggar in the Marvel vs. Capcom video games. He narrated a show for 20 episodes Murder Among Friends (TV series). Important roles (not main but secondary/recurring) in films include The Den (2013 film), Broken Vows (2016 film), Boy Culture, Lovers Lane (1999 film) and Coffee Town. Also he voices General MacDonnell in Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare which should be a significant role. He has 117 credits on IMDb! Sahaib (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. No sustained coverage and fails nactor. Praxidicae (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Current article shows multiple roles with many blue links. Appears to meet WP:NACTOR Jeepday (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify, you think that minor unnamed roles as an extra satisfy WP:NACTOR just because the film itself is bluelinked, Jeepday? Praxidicae (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in support of Jeepday's argument. That many wikilinks, regardless of level of roles played, do make an impression. It just seems to be good information in an encyclopedia.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:01, 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) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neodymium(III) bromide[edit]

Neodymium(III) bromide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article does not prove notability, consisting only of basic characteristics, and based on Google Scholar, I suspect that there is nothing nontrivial about this compound, aside from routine Raman spectroscopy and mixtures with other compounds. Tagged for notability since December 2016; although the user was later found to be a sockpuppet, there is no reason to believe that this was done in bad faith. Consider this to be precedent for other inorganic compounds, for which I can't find any record in the archive. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am not aware of a specific notability criteria here, but clicking on the google books links returns LOTS of hits. Would seem to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jeepday and WP:BEFORE. AfD is not for cleanup, and certainly not for expanding s stub into an article. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in support of Jeepday and seeing similar results in my own quick search.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey A. Rich[edit]

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

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

Non-notable per WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 20:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:MILL. The award is NN. The "boards" seem to be committees of sorts. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - simply does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:43, 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 redirect to Camp Horn. Missvain (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horn, Arizona[edit]

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

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

There was pretty clearly a railroad station here: the foundations of three trackside buildings are still visible, and Street View also shows a water tank. These buildings also show up on topos, and that's about it: there is nothing else around except the inevitable parallel road and a strip of farmland a bit to the south, along the river. Searching is next to hopeless due to the multiplicity of false hits but I got nothing but clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its current status and inconvenient name are not reasons to delete. With an estimated population of 25 in 1933 ([11]), it was described as a growing community in 1941, two years later it become the site of Camp Horn, Arizona, and rightly or wrongly it still appears on maps ([12]) and descriptions ([13]) as a location. If enough isn't found for a separate article it should be merged with Camp Horn, Arizona.----Pontificalibus 07:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "There was pretty clearly a railroad station here..." Enough said. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the USA. We have routinely deleted places that consisted only of a station stop. Mangoe (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:RAILOUTCOMES says. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it says "Other [non-heavy] stations are usually kept or merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they are on. If there was sig coverage about a station here, it could have an article. If there was anything to merge into the article on the Union Pacific in Arizona, it could be merged. If it was mentioned in some article, it could be redirected. Otherwise, it's a delete from a rail perspective. MB 15:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Camp Horn. No evidence of any kind of organized community here. Some people may have lived on farms in the area, leading to a mention or two that it was a community - because using the name of the closest named rail siding was convenient way to indicate the area. MB 15:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Camp Horn. No evidence of any kind of organized community here per MB. Fails GNG and NGEO.   // Timothy :: talk  00:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The site of the camp having been on the railroad can be covered there. Even WP:RAILOUTCOMES applied here, that would apply for a Horn railroad station article, not one about a community. Reywas92^Talk 18:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per above. WP:GEOLAND gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places. I don't see any evidence that this place is or was legally recognised, even if it's mentioned as somewhere people lived. If it's an unrecognised populated place, or something else like a station, then it has to pass the WP:GNG. The passing mentions linked are not nearly sufficient for this. Hut 8.5 11:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Camp Horn per above discussion. There is basically nothing to write about this community other than it possibly existed. FOARP (talk) 21:09, 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 of the debate was speedy keep for reasons below. RanDom 404 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compsosaurus[edit]

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

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

Possible hoax? RanDom 404 (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep procedurally. definitely not a hoax article, just a poorly-described early doubtful genera. These are not inherently notable but there is no evidence that WP:BEFORE has been attempted. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google Scholar turns up 2 pages of papers about this, with the most recent from 1998. Not well know enough to have warranted further study. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Wikipedia:Notability (natural sciences)#Living things. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:54, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wynberg Girls' Junior School[edit]

Wynberg Girls' Junior School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While apparently a successful school. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reason provided. HeyitsBen ^talk 19:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per above. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 11:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no secondary, indepdent, 3rd party sources for this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Bahadur Mansur Ali Khan[edit]

Khan Bahadur Mansur Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No apparent credible claim of significance, no apparent criteria to satisfy the GNG. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Sources are blogs, Facebook, and what appears to be a self-published book. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:48, 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 Snow keep. Consensus is that the StayC article meets WP:BAND. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StayC[edit]

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

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

Article has an interesting log history, first tagged for copyvio, then for CSD A7 and G12, was moved to the draft space by Abdotorg for failing the GNG on November 18, then apparently recreated November 30 with attempt to fix the problems identified previously. In order to sort this, and in light of the constant back and forth with CSD and allegations of copyright infringement, I'm listing it here for community consideration. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although the article may have had some issues in the past regarding notability, those have long since been improved upon, as is logical for a group that is 1 month post-debut rather than 1 week post-debut. The group has charted within the top 10 of a major music market^[1], which meets the notability requirements for WP:BAND. Copyright infringement (although I'm not aware of any on this page) on its own is not a reason for deleting an article, but I'd be happy to edit out any issues that you see in the article's current state. Lukestepford (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Album and single have charted in the US and KO, although not very high. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has enough sources and meets musician notability guidelines by having charted in top 100 of a country chart.Peter303x (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Substantial sources, good enough music chartings domestically (GAON) or internationally (Billboard). In addition, the said "copyright infringement" site is like Namu Wiki, a site that shouldn't be used as reference when drafting a page in Wikipedia. Speedthief1 (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The group's debut has charted on Billboard or on the Gaon Charts, which makes them pretty well-off and notable enough to host their own article, and they are on the same tier as the other K-pop idol groups with their own pages that debuted this 2020. I don't really see why their page should be taken down over copyright infringement issues when it still can be improved upon as more credible information becomes available. Corpomosis (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has charted, their album reaching no. 6 on the Korean National chart and together with reliable sources coverage such as the South China Morning Post they pass WP:NMUSIC so that deletion is unnecessary in my view. Also have just ran a copyvio check with the earwig tool and its come up clean. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets #2 of WP:BAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Argentine football announcers[edit]

List of Argentine football announcers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't see a list like this belonging in an encyclopaedia. The only way of properly sourcing this and keeping it up to date will be to reference it to primary sources; there are no secondary sources covering this topic. Almost all of the people in this list are not notable.

• As per WP:LISTN - One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources - I see no evidence of that for this topic.
• WP:LISTPURP - this list is not informative, it does not aid in navigation nor is it useful for development purposes.
• WP:ATD - there is no obvious merge or redirect target. I'm also strongly against merging anything that's basically WP:OR.
• WP:RS - the sources used do not look reliable and I'm not convinced that any RS exist for this topic.
• WP:OR - this is currently original research Spiderone 09:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom, no evidence of notability, LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 09:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have a List of British football commentators and similar lists for other nations. To single out the Argentine list for deletion on the occasion of the death of Diego Maradona would be in poor taste. Announcers such as Roberto Perfumo and Víctor Hugo Morales are quite famous in this field. Latin announcers have an extravagant style which is the subject of academic study. See here and there, for examples. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the British one is the only other list as the rest are categories so will have different criteria. It could also be argued that both of these lists are a violation of WP:NOTDIR (Wikipedia is not a TV Guide) Spiderone 11:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Andrew, your response does not address the important issue of sourcing. Is there even one reliable, secondary source that lists the notable current Argentine football announcers? Spiderone 11:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided two sources while the nominator does not seem to have provided any evidence in support of their proposal. Looking further at the current content, I see that it doesn't contain either of the famous announcers that I listed. I do notice the amusing name of Diego Fucks and find that they have an article in the Spanish Wikipedia. The topic is likely to be covered best in that language but, as I'm neither fluent in Spanish nor a football fan, I'm not the best person to follow up these leads. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning the notability of Roberto Perfumo and Víctor Hugo Morales as your source clearly proves that the former is notable. My issue is that this list does not meet our inclusion criteria. As I explain above, this does not meet LISTN and does not have any valid purpose under LISTPURP. At best, we could make some of these links link to the Spanish Wikipedia versions of the individual but I'm not sure if that's generally the done thing. In addition, there are serious WP:V issues in that there is no accurate listing of Argentine commentators across the networks so the only possible way to source this article will be direct from primary sources if even that. This is original research and there is no valid source covering this as a group. Individual Argentine commentators may well be notable and they may well gain interest but I don't see how this list benefits our encyclopaedia and, since the only other similar list is the British one, I don't think that the 'other lists exist' is a particularly effective argument here. Spiderone 12:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Own GOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - does anyone have any reliable sources that discuss in depth and/or list Argentine football announcers? Spiderone 16:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nom summed this up very well, there are not sources showing this is discussed as a group, fails GNG LISTN LISTPURP.   // Timothy :: talk  11:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:LISTN. And bravo to Lugnuts - brilliant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After article improvement, consensus is keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marijn Backer[edit]

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

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

No sources since its creation in 2009. There's a claim of importance here though I don't really get much in Google searches beyond entries for his books. There's one news article in which he's mentioned in a caption but not in the body. — 🦊 09:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — 🦊 09:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — 🦊 09:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Teacher. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:JUSTAVOTE. User voted twice delete within 1 minute. Totally ignored the relevant professional standard claiming the person is a teacher. Being an educator is not what Backer is notable for, although it does relate to his nonfiction and youth fiction writing. Subject is an award-winning and frequently reviewed author (as all authors in major Dutch publishing houses are) and should never have been nominated. gidonb (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I doubt he's notable for his work as a schoolteacher but he has a plausible case for notability through WP:AUTHOR: Google Books finds multiple books authored by him, and the two links in the "Awards" section of the article are to notable awards for writing. However we would need to find published reviews of the books or sourcing for the awards to confirm this. As he appears to be writing mainly children's books in Dutch, that probably means that the sources would also be in Dutch (not a problem for using them as sources, but it makes it more difficult for non-Dutch-speakers to find). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:AUTHOR #4c, has won an important prize and is included in an authoritative lexicon. Backer also meets the basic standard of the WP:GNG. There were no references but per WP:NEXIST "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." I added a few references and there are many more sources. I hope that others will add more references. There is absolutely no lack of sources or interest in this Dutch author. gidonb (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Now there are enough reviews (or I guess recencies) to make a second case for WP:AUTHOR notability beyond the awards. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. With bios usually a few references support notability and the rest only support data in the article. This article is rare since all 15 references support the subject's notability. I can add more but time-consuming and the WP:HEY level was clearly reached. It puzzles me why this article was nominated in the first place. If one does not know how to find references in foreign languages, the correct remedy is adding a ((references)) template. Not AfD. gidonb (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even beyond the 15 references, I have added 2 more references that support the subject's notability and 2 more that don't -- to support the 18 translations. gidonb (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC) I upped to 22. Still, a for bios exceptionally high proportion of the references support notability. gidonb (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Significant effort expended and good sourcing changes made to the article. I would ask the other reviewers on this thread to revisit for another evaluation.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with the previous comments that his awards make him a notable author, even if he isn't notable as a teacher. Papaursa (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mírzá Mustafá[edit]

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

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

Does not qualifies WP:BASIC Serv181920 (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a named apostle of the founder of the Baha’i faith, equivalent to a Christian apostle or one of the close companions of the prophet Muhammad. Mccapra (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for the non-notable people listed as apostles of Baha'u'llah, a section on the page Apostles of Baháʼu'lláh is sufficient. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep >> I agree with Mccapra. --Nerdtimer (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one source is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as obviously being a topic that any self-respecting general encyclopedia not limited by size should cover. Anyone concerned that there is only one source cited can add others found by clicking on the word "books" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I agree with Cunado.Fails WP:GNG Jammu58 (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mccapra and Phil Bridger. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We appear to run into the danger of looking for sourcing in just English. This does appear to be quite notable, and there are plenty of mentions in books on Baha'u'llah.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Phil Bridger; clicking on 'books' does indeed show many significant mentions in reputable books Spiderone 20:36, 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 no consensus. After a second extended discussion it seems that this VC firm is a borderline case of notability and so there is still no consensus as to whether or not it should be kept or deleted. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toba Capital[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL14 scope_creep^Talk 09:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created this article. It was nominated for deletion in 2018, and the discussion was closed as no consensus. Since then, the article has been further improved with additional info, suggesting even less of a reason to delete it now. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comment in the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toba Capital. There is sufficient coverage about Toba Capital in this article in The Mercury News titled "With Toba Capital, Vinny Smith suddenly emerges as a player in the venture industry" and this article in the Orange County Business Journal titled "Toba Rolls Ahead With String of Exits, IPO" to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  The Mercury News article contains quotes from interviews with Toba founder Vinnnie Smith, but there is enough research from the journalist to establish notability:

  Former Quest chairman and CEO Vinny Smith, for his part, is plowing the fortune he reaped from the sale [of Quest Software to Michael Dell for $2.4 billion] into a new venture firm called Toba Capital.

  In the past few months, Toba has invested in more than a dozen enterprise software startups. On Tuesday, San Jose’s Quorum — a maker of data-recovery software — will become the latest addition to Smith’s portfolio, with an $11 million infusion.

  ...

  And Smith is spreading the wealth beyond the Bay Area. Though he’s recently opened a three-person San Francisco office, his team of software-executives-turned-investors also is deployed in New York, Texas, Minnesota and Southern California.

  ...

  Since getting back into the venture business, he’s attacked things with gusto. Last month, Toba led a $10 million investment in Palo Alto software maker WSO2; last week, Smith’s firm doled out $9 million for Codenvy, a San Francisco startup that helps developers build and test apps via the cloud.

  ...

  As for the firm’s name? It refers to the Toba Eruption, a volcanic explosion in Indonesia more than 70,000 years ago that some scientists believe led to a global winter that supercharged human evolution.

  Cunard (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically fails WP:CORPDEPTH as an announcement of the IPO for the first ref and WP:ORGIND, with Smith, 48, who rarely grants interviews, told this newspaper he expects to put as much as $150 million into venture deals this year. According to figures from the National Venture Capital Association, only half a dozen venture firms invested more in the valley in 2012. scope_creep^Talk 12:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a good additional point for voters and closers to consider. This is a very publicity shy company, so it took a lot of effort for the media to even get the information out that we have in this article. This is the largest venture-capital company in Orange County, California. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: Since when has publicity and shyness been linked to notability. I don't believe it is. I think if the company was sufficiently large it would generate its own wake, sufficient to get an article and it wouldn't need to rely on a furtive director to provide its branding. scope_creep^Talk 14:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lets have a look at the references:

* Top VC Firms Invest 47% More in Local Companies Its paywalled.

* Quest Vet Dickson Unretires For New Enterprise Its paywalled.

* Smith moves on after grueling battle with Dell An interview. Fails WP:ORGIND

* With Toba Capital, Vinny Smith suddenly emerges as a player in the venture industry Smith, 48, who rarely grants interviews. Fails WP:ORGIND. An interview.

* Dell sells its majority stake in Smarsh to investment fund Toba Capital Routine annoucment of sale of stock. “It’s been a dramatic difference for us, even in a short amount of time,” said Stephen Marsh, Smarsh’s founder and chief executive, reflecting on the new ownership. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial announcement. Fails WP:ORGIND Interview style article.

* Toba Puts $4M into Kids' Drink Maker Paywalled, but routine announcement of investment. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

* Toba Backs Software Startup Paywalled.

* PatientPop Picks Up $10M Routine announcement. This crowd seems to be a bit more honest in their approach. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

* Tech investor Peter Thiel ups stake in Lystable Paywalled, but not specifically about company. Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

* Toba in $11M Series A Round Paywalled but more routine investment announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

* [14] Duplicate news. Effectively non-rs.

* On Vinny’s Table: Impact Investing Paywalled. Likely routine announcements.

* Vinny Smith's Toba Capital Gets Exit At Codenvy Routine announcement. WP:CORPDEPTH

* Toba Capital Backs Grow.com In $16M In Funding More funding announcements from a company that provides funds. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

Looking at these refs, they are effectively the news of the companies operation. Not a single references, starting from the first reference, indicates why it is notable. It is a small private company of 15 individuals with no evidence of being notable. It is entirely non-notable as it exactly the same as numerous other VC funds of similar, of which they are hundreds. It entirely generic in nature. All that has been presented in its references, are a list of operations as announcements in local trade papers. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOTDIR. It has no place on Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 12:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another run of the mill company looking to promote, with duplicate after duplicate offered up as support. Blacklisteffort (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - this is not a run of the mill company - it’s the largest venture capital firm in Orange County, CA, and is controlled by a tech billionaire. I’m not getting how this is promotional - all the sources demonstrate sustained continuous third party media coverage, satisfying NCORP. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment User above has been blocked as a sock, one of at least two created to vote delete in recent AfD discussions for articles I created. Am I allowed to strikethrough the comment since they've been blocked, to make this more clear? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I just struck through the sock comments per site convention. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've really no idea how the last AfD was closed as No Consensus. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Cunard has no credibility in listing sources as 99% of the sources he lists in NCORP-related AfDs fail NCORP requirements and I commented on the failed references at the last AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Unless it says otherwise at the reliable sources noticeboard, these sources are all independent third party media outlets, and are just as good as the sourcing used for most articles. From what the media reports about the company and its publicity-shy founder, I bet they’d be happy to have this deleted. But it’s not up to them if we deem them notable enough, and the sustained media coverage makes it so. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. Let's assume they're all "independent third party media outlets" - that says nothing about the content which, as you know, also has to meet a standard as described in ORGIND. None of those references meet that standard. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. All the references above are PR and announcements with information provided by the company or a connected source. Fails our guidelines to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm missing the main point, which is that this is the largest VC firm in Orange County, with over $1B invested, and that makes the company notable. If you can refute that, I'm all ears. I'm in an ongoing debate about sources that are based on company announcements, but we both know that there's a gatekeeping process. Otherwise, more non-notable company announcements would see the light of day. In addition, the numerous independent reliable and clearly verifiable sources that have been identified and integrated into the article detail the scope of the company's investment impact on the tech world, a subject underrepresented on Wikipedia. If you can't read any that are paywalled, I'd be happy to email them to you. I just realized that an article was created for founder Vinnie Smith since you nominated Toba Capital for deletion two years ago. Before the Smith article was created, you suggested at Talk:Toba Capital that you thought he was more notable and that the company article should be renamed to an article in his name. I think if you read both articles now you'll see that will be awkward, but you can always suggest a merge proposal and see where it goes. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is an odd situation. Sources that may be used to support facts and information in an article do not have the same criteria as sources that may be used to establish notability. I notice you refer to these sources as "independent reliable clearly verifiable" but I would argue that your use of the word "independent" only refers to "corporate independence" in that there are no dependencies or corporate connections between the topic company and the publisher. You are deliberately not asserting that the content is independent because if you did, you know it would in all likelihood meet NCORP. There's no getting around the requirement for references that meet NCORP, nothing more, nothing less. So to be clear - I'm not refuting the "facts" in the article insofar as the AfD process is only concerned with notability, I'm simply pointing out that the references to date fail NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is enough to pass WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It is clearly not a promotional article, and has not been the target of paid/COI editing. This sort of company often prefers a lower profile, so the coverage is relatively thin for an organisation of this significance. Edwardx (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx: Can you describe to be exactly why a company of 15 people, is notable, particular since the coverage is woefully bad? scope_creep^Talk 17:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I think you are the only one saying the sourcing is woefully bad (although HighKing agrees with your opinion that the sources don't show notability). I disagree, and have to reiterate that it's all independent coverage, in reliable third party sources, which by definition exactly meets WP:NCORP guidelines. I don't want to hit reviewers over the head with a wall of citations, which indeed wouldn't add more substance to the article, but you can see this link showing the 278 Toba Capital articles published just in the Orange County Business Journal alone. [[15]] They're paywalled, but I can send any of them to you if you'd like. Just send me the URL. Also per NCORP, "Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet". I just added some minor recent coverage from the LA Business Journal, to add to the demonstrated range of media sources reporting on the company. Also, the number of employees a company has shouldn't be the basis of notability, since you could never argue the reverse - that a large headcount alone implies notability. It helps, but you still need media coverage. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton:, I'll disagree with you saying that it is "all independent coverage". What is your definition of "independent" exactly? Because I don't think it is the same as WP:ORGIND which is part of the applicable guidelines for companies. Post a link to the best reference here and lets discuss exactly why you believe it is "independent" and we can also look at NCORP to show why it might not. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: They're all independent, per Wikipedia's definition. From WP:IS, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." If I'm writing an article about a notable company, I avoid using primary sources like press releases or links to a company web site unless absolutely necessary, even though others at the help desk have told me that press releases are allowed as sources, I suppose if you preface the info with "The company announced ...". I'm not going to make it easier to challenge the article by proxy by singling out any single coverage - the article needs to stand on the body of sources I identified. Diligent reviewers and closers can read Wikipedia's relevant policy and the sources themselves. I posted a link above to 278 articles in just one independent publication alone. It shouldn't matter at this point, but I'll reiterate my offer to send the text for any of those articles to any interested readers - please email me using the email contact process on my talk page. Lastly, I'm trying to understand how you are interpreting WP:ORGIND versus WP:IS based on our past discussions, and please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position, but the only conclusion I can come to is that you feel that if an article was started because a media outlet based it on a press release it read, than that immediately disqualifies the coverage for being dependent? That's a narrow interpretation that I don't think is valid; otherwise, very little coverage would survive. As an off-the-cuff example, this [[16]] would preclude us from writing about Apple's new headphones. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtempleton Why use WP:IS, which isn't even a guideline nor has any official standing, to cherry-pick a definition which suits your narrative when the actual official guideline in WP:NCORP specifically gives a definition of "Independent" at WP:ORGIND which has been pointed out to you multiple times. What you're trying to do is make room for regurgitated press releases and announcement to establish notability which would lead to an avalanche of spammy company articles. What NCORP strives to achieve is to require references which are not based on company announcements and PR. If the company is notable then it is obvious that somebody, somewhere will just write about them and provide genuine "independent" analysis or commentary and not just regurgitate whatever the company says. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lots of incidental coverage but scope_creep's source assessment above (and HighKing's in the last AfD) are on the money—not seeing which sources are meant to prove in-depth coverage of the company itself. Ping me if you find what's paywalled behind those OCBJ articles, though. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 08:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Czar Here's one with updated investment info that I just added, just one of the 278 articles about them in the OCBJ. It was from a VC themed issue in February, and anoints them as the "800 lb gorilla of Orange County". I PDF'd it and uploaded to Google drive - hopefully you can read it. [[17]] Here is the full list of all the OCBJ coverage - if there are any that you're interested in, I'll pdf them as well [[18]]]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources provide enough coverage in my mind to support the information in the article. This seems good information to have in an encyclopedia, and should be improved rather than deleted if there are concerns about sourcing.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if you actually looked at the references, which I don't believe you did, you would see that they are actually very low-quality, that in terms of semantics, fail certain Wikipedia policies, for which the most important notability policy for business articles is WP:NCORP. It is clear from your non-reason based rationale that you haven't read that either. scope_creep^Talk 23:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the company meets WP:NCORP. The "organization ... has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published." San Jose Mercury News, the Orange County Business Journal, Los Angeles Business Journal, TechCrunch and the Boston Globe clearly show reliable coverage by unrelated sources. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are many company articles that lack adequate sourcing, and many company articles that are obviously promotional in tone, and I !vote to delete those ones. This is not one of those ones. General arguments about how this opens the door to a putative flood of spam articles do not convince me here. Billion-dollar venture capital firms are not the same thing as Bargain Bob's Boot Bonanza. We can still apply NCORP to, say, Bob's Phone Repair And SEO Marketing Solutions. In addition, I was able to access one of the OCBJ articles, and there was no evidence to me that it was "dependent coverage". The word "routine" is being used pejoratively here, as though it's an objective term, and I'm not sure what it means in this context. It's routine for news organizations to report on news. I do not see a strong argument against keeping the page, scope_creep responding to every single keep !vote notwithstanding. jp×g 07:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see your another editor that doesn't agree with NCORP that is both disruptive and against Wikipeda Terms of Use. Here is Orange County Business Journal advertising page. It gets so much advertising, that it has total of 9 separate account managers for a relatively small readership of around 20k people. That tells me that most of the money tha journal makes is from advertising. What we have is concerted effort to subvert Wikipedia Terms of Use to ensure fintech company with 7 employess has some extra advertising. Tim, your definition of what contitutes notability is abosolutly jaundiced. Particulalry when all the references you have posted above, which I examined last night also fails WP:NCORP. Being a billion dollar vc firms, that is your rationale for being notatable, with only 7 people employed there. scope_creep^Talk 12:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm literally quoting the policy you cited as being most relevant, word for word, and it suggests keep. How is supporting that disruptive? Once consensus changes, going against it starts to be the disruptive act. What's the saying - "hate the game, not the player"? And my offer to show any of the other hundreds of independent sources about the company still stands. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Accusing people of disruption because they don't agree on your interpretation of a guideline is unwarranted, and making paragraph-long replies to every single person who disagrees with you on an AfD is bludgeoning, but baseless accusations of CoI are inexcusable. Do you have any evidence at all to demonstrate the claim that I'm part of a "concerted effort" to "subvert the terms of use" to ensure a company has "extra advertising"? If not, please apologize and strike your comment. jp×g 00:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and scope_creep comments above. Kolma8 (talk) 11:10, 16 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Soccer Manager[edit]

Ultimate Soccer Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources DocumentError (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this was one of the most famous soccer management games of the 1990s - let me see what I can do to save this. SportingFlyer T·C 12:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• All I've found online so far is this review, a mention in a Dutch book on video games, a Stuff list saying it was the 25th best soccer video game of all time and two newspaper clippings showing it was in the top 10 best-selling video games in Australia in 1997, for I think a week. However the internet won't be the best place for searching for notability as this was a 90s game that I'm certain would have been reviewed in other major sources similar to the Independent. SportingFlyer T·C 12:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer the problem is that this article is not about one game, but the whole series. It mistakenly calls new games as "versions", which isn't true. First ref is just about the last game, Stuff is about the first game, etc. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This content can be encyclopedic if could cite more indepent source, i think there are some reference out there on GnewsLynndonald (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ultimate Soccer Manager 98 (DSF Fussball Manager 98 in Germany) is absolutely notable, finding at least 4 reviews for it [19], [20] (mentioned above), [21], [22], but the series as whole (what this article is about) was never covered and thus not notable per WP:GNG, so I am leaning to delete here. If needed, any entry could have its own Wikipedia article separately. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jovanmilic97: I'm still a keep - I'm sure you'd find reviews for the earlier games if you look in the right spots, and we also group games together by series when they're not individually notable enough for their own article: see Front Page Sports Football. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify I found a review of the original title, it's hard to believe there aren't more out there. People who are better at finding sources should at least be given some months to do just that._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - I think that is the best option. It was always going to be difficult to find online sources for this game. Draftifying would at least give someone the chance to find offline sources should they wish to. Spiderone 21:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftifying doesn't make sense. This article has been on the website since 2004, only six years after the last edition of the game. Draftifying works best with articles that are WP:TOOSOON that will be notable soon, or newly created articles that were moved into mainspace too quickly, where there's an author willing to work on them. Draftifying this will likely ensure its deletion, considering sources exist but are difficult to find. I've added two older magazine reviews to the article - a look at MobyGames shows there are more out there. SportingFlyer T·C 13:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult one. I think we all know that the topic is notable but proving it is a different matter. Might be one of those rare times when we should just WP:IGNOREALLRULES and keep it. Spiderone 16:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete while the individual games might be notable on their own, the series as a whole has not received coverage. This article can become a standalone article for the original game if enough sources (like reviews) are found for the game. I do not support draftify because I do not see how the series' notability will change in a few months. Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We typically cover video game series as a whole without requiring them to be covered as a series. That's not a reason for deletion. See other examples, for instance Front Page Sports Football, World Basketball Manager, Out of the Park Baseball, Football Manager. There's also proof of sources existing in the form of reviews here, here, here, and here. SportingFlyer T·C 00:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am still keeping my delete opinion because I don't think the other stuff exists argument is valid in this case. The notability of the series is in question for this AfD and I don't think there is enough coverage of the series to justify keeping the article as is. Also, Mobygames is considered unreliable on WP:VG/RS (this wikilink also lists reliable sources pertaining to video games.) Z1720 (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You've misunderstood both of my arguments. I'm not saying this is notable because those are notable. I'm showing we frequently discuss video game series in one article, without requiring the entire series to be notable, as a way of consolidating articles. Also, I'm not saying this is notable because it has an article on Mobygames. I'm saying there are multiple reviews on the Mobygames page which can be used to show notability and develop the article further. SportingFlyer T·C 16:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Mobygames aggregator links above are sufficient—multiple major reviews for each game and when considered together, sufficient for an overview article. Instead of separate articles for each game, use this one to build sections in summary style. Draftify doesn't make sense in cases like this. Expert source searchers are not going to arbitrarily come out of the woodwork in the next several months. Ask a noticeboard and you'll get some bites, but otherwise drafifying rarely makes sense unless someone is explicitly asking to work on it in isolation. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 09:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Great discussion. I would much prefer to keep and improve rather than delete. The arguments of czar and SportingFlyer carry the day in my mind.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Kolma8 (talk) 11:08, 16 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) 09:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary narrative[edit]

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

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

Article about an apparent neologism. I can find sparse sources but not sure whether this is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Seeking community consensus. Mccapra (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OR and WP:GNG. I would not oppose a redirect to an appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article seems to come verbatim from World Heritage Encyclopedia - my link to show the article there was rejected, however. It's likely a worthy subject for an article, but not in copy-and-paste manner without sourcing.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. I didn't come across that in my search but when I look now I can't even get the WHE to load properly. My guess is that the person who was trying to propagate this neologism was responsible for the entry there as well as for our article here. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2020v (UTC)
• OK I've finally got it to load and there is no entry for 'involuntary narrative’. Searching for that term just throws up a bunch of unrelated items with the word 'involuntary' in them. Mccapra (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure why this link comes up as blacklisted - please check for Gutenberg and article ID = WHEBN0028885249.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Appears to be an attempt at a WP:NEOLOGISM that failed at gaining any sort of widespread use. The content currently in the article seems largely comprised of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Searching for sources terms up pretty much nothing that are not just mirrors of this article. There are results from papers that happened to use the two individual words, but none of them appear to be discussing the subject of this article. The entry at the "World Heritage Encyclopedia" mentioned by Concertmusic above is actually just a mirror of this article - it specifies at the bottom that it was copied from this Wikipedia article, not the other way around. Rorshacma (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder why it didn’t come up when I searched for it. Mccapra (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NEOLOGISM. Doesn't meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:05, 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. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 06:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narcolepsy Network[edit]

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

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

No significant coverage per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NO RS establishing this as meeting general notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepAs pointed out there is RS on Google scholar. I also checked web of science and there was 8 RS journals on there referring to this database. I've added some extra references and content. Changed my vote to keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am finding lot's of Google News results on "Narcolepsy Network," mostly they seem to be passing mentions, but there may be enough to justify a keep.This needs more research or improvement from the author. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Greene, Gayle (2008). Insomniac. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24630-0. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

     The book notes on page 104:

     There are booths for the ... and the Narcolepsy Network. ... I have a long talk with a woman from the Narcolepsy Network, another advocacy group that came from humble beginnings. Begun in the mid-1980s by three or four women, it now boasts more than 1,200 members, including families, physicians, and researchers. It maintains dozens of patient support groups, distributes a quarterly newsletter, hosts a Website, participates in clinical trials, and advises members about disability laws and other matters.

     The book notes on page 356:

     The Narcolepsy Network similarly emerged from small beginnings, from the vision of thirteen women who came together from self-help groups in 1984. It now has over twelve hundred members, and, as one of them told me, "now NIH comes to us for ideas." As a result of its work publicizing this disease, "in the last twenty years, the average time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis has dropped from twenty-five years to nine"—a major accomplishment! Members of the Narcolepsy Network also ...

  2. Coburn, Susan (2001-10-01). "Outlet for Narcolepsy". Stamford Advocate.

     The article notes:

     The Narcolepsy Network, a national non-profit organization formed in 1986, offers a wealth of information and support for people who have narcolepsy, their families and friends, and professionals involved in the treatment, research, and public education regarding the disorder at www.narcolepsynetwork.org.

     ...

     A quick tour: The FAQ (frequently asked questions) segment of Narcolepsy Network helps put the disorder in context for recently diagnosed patients. This section addresses [information]. More mundane but very important issues that concern narcoleptic patients also are addressed in this section, including [information].

     ...

     The site provides researchers information on obtaining grants, sponsored by the Narcolepsy Network, to study the disorder.

  3. "Narcolepsy Network". Medicine on the Net. Vol. 19, no. 6. June 2013. pp. 10–11. ISSN 1085-3502.

     The abstract notes: "The article reviews the Web site of the nonprofit patient support group Narcolepsy Network, located www.narcolepsynetwork.org."

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

  Cunard (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Scholar search comes up with several citations in academic journals - just one example being Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine. Together with the research provided by Cunard above, RS and notability seem to be no issue.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm willing to withdraw this AfD per notability being shown if Deathlibrarian agrees. SL93 (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks SL93 - I found some more references - I've actually added some of them to the article and added some more details, as it was a bit scant. I just checked the Web Of Science Databases, and it gets 8 hits there, including a specific article discussing it, which I will add to the article. (The European Narcolepsy Network (EU-NN) database By: Khatami, Ramin; Luca, Gianina; Baumann, Christian R.; et al. Group Author(s): European Narcolepsy Network JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH Volume: ‏ 25 Issue: ‏ 3 Pages: ‏ 356-364 Published: ‏ JUN 2016). There's also plenty of hits in Google scholar. So yes, happy for you to withdraw the nomination. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw SL93 (talk) 14:38, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Bohman[edit]

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

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

a coatrack of an article, but a local reporter who hasn't received any (as far as I can tell) meaningful in depth coverage. Merely interviewing notable subjects does not lend itself to notability and it doesn't appear he's won any awards that would qualify either. Praxidicae (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is he Dan Rather? No, but he's had a long career in broadcast journalism, as an anchorman and investigative reporter, and he's had coverage here and here and here and here. Plus he's a recipient of Emmy awards and Emmy nominations here and here and here and here and here and here and here and this award. He represented the news industry as a panelist here. Overall, he meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I understand the nomination, but the Emmy nominations (even if they are regional Emmies) put him over the WP:GNG for me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no question for me about this article - which is almost ref-bombed, but certainly well supported - and the research above takes care of notability for me.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:42, 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 redirect to Circus (Britney Spears album). Missvain (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Glass (Britney Spears song)[edit]

Shattered Glass (Britney Spears song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This may be a WP:GA, but it does not pass WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. The song may have charted, but there is no evidence that it has received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. The current sourcing is almost entirely to album reviews, and while doing a WP:BEFORE, I could not find enough significant coverage on this specific song to support this having a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And before anyone points to the charts as a reason to keep the article, WP:NSONG clearly says that charts may indicate notability, but it puts more importance and emphasis on coverage (which the song does not have). Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to have enough coverage from reliable sources to be notable. Maybe not as well known as her other songs, but the article is well-sourced and has a critical commentary section. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Oaktree b: Whether or not, this song is as "well known" as her others is not relevant to this discussion. Also, an article having a "critical reception" section does not make the subject notable on its own. The key here is whether or not the song has received significant coverage. WP:NSONG specifically states: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." All of the reviews about the song are from album reviews, and they do not count as significant coverage so this is not a strong keep argument. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NSONG. Chart positions do not equate notability, and from the references included, none are non-trivial sources that discuss this song in-depth. HĐ (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect to Circus (Britney Spears album) when there's no significant discussion in any credible sources that aren't album reviews, charts (or lack thereof) are entirely moot, and this shouldn't have been promoted to GA in the first place. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Circus (Britney Spears album): Barely found any independent coverage about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Circus (Britney Spears album), as it clearly doesn't pass WP:NSONGS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on the other articles about her songs that I reviewed, I would think that there are enough sources to improve this article. I would like to see it kept and worked on rather than deleted or merged, as I think some good detailed information will be lost by a merge.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Concertmusic: If you can find evidence that this song has received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources (outside album reviews), then please either list those sources here or incorporate them into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 15 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 Kjelsås Station. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kjelsås tram stop[edit]

Kjelsås tram stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

tram stop at a railway station. Not WP:notable noq (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no mentions of notability, google does not show any notability Jeepday (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Kjelsås Station While the tram stop isn't part of the station itself (200m away), it has the same name and both articles refer to each other so it seems a valid target Jumpytoo Talk 21:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think most (not all) tram stops should be merged to nearby features, including this. Geschichte (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively as suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Kjelsås Station in support of the above suggestion.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candysuck[edit]

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

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

Not notable GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band. The article is sourced solely to Discogs and Musicbrainz, which are not reliable. During a Google search I haven't found anything reliable, only databases, youtube videos, streaming links, trivial mentions/name checks (there are lots of those), and some blogs. No reliable sources are available, therefore I think the band is not notable. The sourcing isn't better on the Swedish Wiki either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable. Does not meet musician notability guidelines.Peter303x (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom . No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diandra Newlin[edit]

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

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

Non notable actress & singer, Her IMDB page indicates she's only been in one bit non-notable shows/films, No charting singles either, Fails NACTOR, NSINGER and GNG, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lacks notability. The article was created by to editors who ONLY contributed to this article. Likely a promotional or fun-based article. Kolma8 (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nominator. Non notable and doesn't meet music notability guidelines.Peter303x (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Kolma8, but especially per Kolma8. Btw, I was wondering whether the other wiki entries has been written by the one who wrote this, since they all cite the enwiki article as a source, as well as databases. The sourcing is incredibly crappy on the other wikis too. So there is no evidence of notability. Also, most of the article creator's edits revolve around her article, so there's COI involved as well. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional, no notability, and the article’s creator either has a close connection or is the subject herself. Trillfendi (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unfortunately as at this point she only has had minor or short roles and very little released music corresponding with a lack of coverage not passing WP:NACTOR imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW. How is a model like this notable? Bearian (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails notability. Only voting due to being shocked this isn't closed yet. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Ferrer[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; I can find no evidence of a senior football career. All coverage, and there isn't much available, relates to her youth career [23] [24]. Spiderone 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 21:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nerve Engine[edit]

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

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

Non-notable band! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band. The article does not have any sources, just external links like bandcamp and facebook which do not establish notability. During a Google search I couldn't find anything besides the aforementioned pages and the Wiki article, as well as local media. It seems like they were noticed by Leeds newspapers, but that's not independent since the band hails from Leeds. So there are no independent, reliable sources. Connected to Lifescreen, which at the moment is up to Afd as well, and they doesn't seem notable either. While the original creator of the article is not a COI editor, Andy.lifescreen certainly is, as indicated by his name and the fact that 98% of his Wikipedia activity revolved around the pages of these two bands. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - no sources; no evidence of notability. Kolma8 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. They would have a place on a specialist Fandom site, but not here. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nominator. Non notable and doesn't meet music notability guidelines. Peter303x (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Couldn't find anything apart from social media, event listings and the occasional mention in the local newspaper. no sources that would demonstrate notability. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note reliable local newspapers are acceptable independent sources for use on Wikipedia such as bands but they count less for notability than national sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Area 404[edit]

Area 404 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to be notable, fails WP:GNG. The venue opened on 2 November 2019 and the article was created just four months later. Search on Google shows that the venue has not received significant coverage in the media or other independent sources since then. The content is based on a few sources which are mostly blog entries, press releases and event announcements on Facebook by the operators of the venue. For this reason the article may also qualify for WP:SPAM. Rio65trio (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - blog entries and social media posts do not amount to passing WP:GNG Spiderone 11:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per excellent reasoning by nom and Spiderone. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom, the article seems promotional/spam to me. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:53, 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) 09:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of bars, restaurants and venues closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto[edit]

List of bars, restaurants and venues closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Places go bankrupt, people die, things change. The overall impact of these things is important, but a list which is basically a memorial, but then for small businesses, is WP:NOT really an appropriate subject for an article. Added to that, the sourcing is dreadful; the first source I randomly clicked is [25], a promo piece about a new restaurant. Other sources include a blog listing some closed places, but not discussing Covid[26] (places closed before Covid happened, so while obviously many recent closures will be related, some places would have closed anyway, and including them all in a "due to Covid" list should not include poor sources which don't support the claim). According to one source, in September a lot more places opened than closed actually[27]. Fram (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll simply just comment as the creator of this page. This is information brought over from the COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto page for the sake of brevity. I understand your comments on restaurants in particular being a high-risk business venture, however there is evidence by and large of large-scale closures due to the pandemic. I'll try to do some better sourcing in the meantime. If the article is deemed not notable, the information will just be re-entered back into the main article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 16:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Thousands and thousands of venues closed all around the world this year – both because of the pandemic and for unrelated reasons – and it is not encyclopedically notable to list them all. This should have never been in the main article in the first place either. Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could perhaps be incorporated into the main article about the pandemic in the city, with the more notable closings, not a listing of each and every one... Most are places you'll never hear about in a few years. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm starting to feel this is the appropriate action, I've started a mockup for the section in my sandbox for a description of the general impact, an aggregate (approximate) number of closures and a short, small list of notable establishments instead of a long list. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think the nonnotable closings should only be reported in the aggregate (how many Toronto restaurants closed as of date X, etc.), if any reliable sources have compiled those numbers. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per nominator.--UserNL2020 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group, there is no potential for this quality under CLN/AOAL.   // Timothy :: talk  19:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - given the number of venues that have had to close due to this pandemic, I don't see it being a notable distinction among venues. This has no value in a general encyclopaedia. Spiderone 19:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the list is surely incomplete, and most of the establishments were not notable. I agree with the suggestion that a few notable places could be mentioned in the main article, along with an estimate of the total number, if such a number can be reliably sourced. PKT(alk) 17:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTNEWS. A lot of businesses don't survive, it's a fact of life. Ajf773 (talk) 01:11, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Lawrence[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; played mostly in the second tier of Irish football and did not receive significant coverage. There is evidence from Soccerway and GSA that his career practically stopped after Kildare folded. Searching for coverage, I found nothing on Google when searching for his name in connection with the clubs that he played for. On ProQuest, the only hit was a match report. Spiderone 16:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 21:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saltflow[edit]

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

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

This article is for a defunct venture capital company. The refs on the article are dead and a google search hasn't returned anything to establish notability. This link says they had 3 employees. Desertarun (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The information on the page doesn't meet the notability guidelines. The information on the page itself seems to be copied from a non-reputable source. ~RAM (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They were around for nine years and only have 4 lines mentioned in their article. No other language wiki has an article about them and the sources used are not much.... Oaktree b (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability, that the business ever (or continues to) existed or that its principals are involved in trade or investment. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A Google news search finds two articles about the subject [28] and fashion to fiber. One of which is a routine acquisition announcement and fails WP:ORGIND.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NORG, and WP:OUTCOMES. We've deleted articles about funds worth up to $1B. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 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. czar 17:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Mirage, California[edit]

No Mirage, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Looks like more WP:GNIS-type stuff. The GNIS entry says that the coordinates are unknown; the entry is sourced to an old postcard. Can't search topos if I don't know where to look. Google books isn't bringing up anything useful. When I searched newspapers.com, refining to Imperial County, I just got hits about desert mirages. When I expanded it to the whole state, I got hits for desert mirages and Rancho Mirage, California. No indication that WP:GEOLAND is met, and WP:GNG is not, either. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I found two hits that associate the place name with Ocotillo, which is in the right county. Neither of them describes it, and my impression from the one is that it may have been a failed real estate development. At any rate being able to do no more than verify that it probably was a place name is a bald failure to meet WP:GNG. Mangoe (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. Imperial County historically has been filled with tiny temporary spontanious communities.   // Timothy :: talk  16:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamecki coat of arms[edit]

Kamecki coat of arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Empty article. This 13 year old article has neither an image nor a description of the coat of arms (the actual topic!), all three sections are empty. Fram (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - coats of arms are not inherently notable and there's certainly no evidence of notability here Spiderone 11:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no information to support notability. Duncan079 (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Armorial_of_Polish_nobility#K. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes no sense? It just lists the name without any comment, and that name redirects to this article... It won't inform readers at all if they are redirected there, the redirect doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Fram (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG - an empty, unsourced stub. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 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 delete. czar 17:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Bowers[edit]

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

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

This article has been here for a very long time but I think that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. I've checked GSA and Soccerway and neither of them record an appearance for any club other than Kildare in the 2nd tier of Irish football. There is this source that could be used to add to the article but he's still way short of GNG. Searching ProQuest gives us this but it's the Mail on Sunday... Spiderone 15:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 21:13, 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. czar 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Morvarid Homayoun[edit]

Dr Morvarid Homayoun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to be notable, fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Unsourced and can't find any sources on Google. Pahunkat (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - searching the Cypriot Greek version of her name returned zero results. No evidence of passing WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:NARTIST, WP:BASIC etc. Spiderone 15:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I see two references [29] and [30], both of which are primary failing WP:GNG.Faizal batliwala (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No references found, not notable. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As no notability is available Garnarblarnar (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing to suggest notability. Could have been speedied, if you ask me. (Speaking of which, why is there a speedy and AfD running in parallel?) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer[edit]

Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable event. There is no "resolution" in any legal sense. Pointless and inflammatory.
Three (of 158) rogue legislators angling for press attention. Thousands of bills are introduced each session. Many/most do not become enrolled, nor sent to a committee. This has not even made "first reading". In this case, as reported, the leaders of the legislature have called this submission "shameful", and have repeatedly adjourned the legislature without calendaring. All of the reliable sources note it is dead on arrival.
This article has been renamed repeatedly (originally was variants of "Impeachment Hearings"), as there have been no hearings. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, a scandal sheet, or an indiscriminate collection of information.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It barely qualifies as news, let alone something an encyclopedia should note... Caro7200 (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - At the time of the article's creation, I was in support of it. But now that the media hype has died down, not so much. I'll be singing a different tune if impeachment efforts actually go somewhere, but until then, this is not encyclopedic. Let it be known that the user who created the article, Elijahandskip, also created a similar article, Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine, which has since been marked for merging. Love of Corey (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge {Article Creator} per discussions that happened for the AfD Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine. There isn't really anything to actually merge, but just thinking about a deletion being a blow to notability for the information already listed on Gretchen Whitmer. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, there's nothing to merge. It will be removed entirely from the Whitmer article. We don't include unsubstantiated inflammatory material anywhere, especially not in WP:BLP. As already written above, it barely qualified as news. As written in the Talk there, "This is starting to feel disruptive." (Fixed link to DeWine AfD.)
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • William Allen Simpson That I would argue against that completely. Yes it went no where, but since US governors don't have impeachment articles drawn up against them often (Last governor to be impeached was 2009), it is notable enough for a mention. I would be ok removed the subsection, but mentions about it are notable. The same thing is on Mike DeWine. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As noted above, Elijahandskip was the originator of the Dewine article as well, and it was deleted at AfD 3 times! Please don't condescend to me with an apparently rudimentary level knowledge of civics. I'm fairly aware of the legislative process. More than 30 years ago, I was a senior legislative analyst for the Michigan House Fiscal Agency, contracted to do engineering review for the House Computer and Telecommunications Oversight Committee. I'm also rather proud of having authored the legislative language for building the Internet as we know it (then called the NSFnet). While there are so-called "Articles", they were not reported out of any committee. There is no "Resolution", because it has not been resolved by any legislature. These words have legal meaning, and this stunt has had no legal effect.
        William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also note that on the last Afd, it was clear consensus to merge. Also the merge idea was not started by me. The Afd clearly said the DeWine stuff was notable enough...hence Senate Bill 311. Just for the record, that the topic for the impeachment resolution against DeWine was deemed notable for Wikipedia, just not as a stand-alone article. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree that the impeachment story should be removed from the Whitmer article in its entirety. As Elijahandskip said, impeachment efforts against governors don't come along often in U.S. history. It should warrant some sort of mention. Love of Corey (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, this is not notable. Also, there is nothing in any of the 3 Dewine AfDs deeming it notable. A majority of the Delete !votes there specifically state it was not notable. The only reason for a merge there is because Elijahandskip agreed to a speedy merge, out of process, after 2 previous deletions.
              William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • William Allen Simpson what "Deleted comments" say that is isn't notable. Every single comment except the actual Afd nominator (original reasons for Afd) talk about the impeachment resolution for Mike DeWine#Impeachment resolution. The original Afd nominator also agreed to keep it in Mike DeWines article. There actually was a very large consensus for the merge. (Also, the Afd reasons were all fixed. Notability was deemed at that Afd, otherwise the merge, again not started by me, wouldn't have happened. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Delete !votes" are not "Deleted comments". Notability was not "deemed at the AfD". The !votes agreed to merge without redirect, "rather than spending a week at AFD." I'm opposed to a merge here.
                  William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Meant delete comments. My badElijahandskip (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion above, it seems fair to ping editors involved in the Mike DeWine discussion. Any objections? Elijahandskip (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Relevant users as discussion is involving a previous Afd: Valereee, Levivich, Twassman, Pawnkingthree. I am also pinging the admin who completed the merge; Missvain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs)
  • I didn't receive a notice about "Mentions being sent". Not sure if pings worked. Going to wait a while and hope they received it. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out about this. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mike DeWine. Wondering if William Allen Simpson is taking this too far. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge - We already went through this kinda thing, with Ohio governor Mike DeWine. Just add the attempt into the Whitmer article. See how it's done at the DeWine article, for example. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it goes to a point when we have an actual recall election, this will not be notable. I am not even convinced if we got to the point of a recall election it would be notable enough to justify a separate article, but it clearly is not at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anica Plećić[edit]

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

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

This article was created by a user whose only contributions were all related to this article. Notability is asserted by claiming that she has multiple caps for Serbia but this is not verified by the sources given. This interview makes no mention of any cap and this video is clearly of a club match not an international fixture. I have checked Soccerway, which says she was on the bench four times but never played and World Football and Sport.de have no record of any cap on her profile. In terms of WP:GNG, I found a few hits for her name in a Serbian search relating to futsal but nothing discussing her in depth. Spiderone 13:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Happy to change my !vote if proof that she played for the senior Serbian national team can be produced. Number 57 21:13, 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. czar 17:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Lafrance[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC; unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Also fails WP:ANYBIO; the Prime Minister's Awards for Teaching Excellence has been given to 1,500 people in the past 27 years. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]