< November 12	November 14 >

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. Sandstein 09:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan women's national boxing team[edit]

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

No such team exists, boxing is an individual sport. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC) I am also nominating the following for the same reasons, as these sports are individual sports.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep There's plenty of sources who disagree with you that there is no such thing as a boxing team. For instance this one, this one, this one, Etc. Etc. My guess is that they are scored as a team for the individual boxing performances. I'm sure the same goes for the other articles. There should really be a more authoritative discussion about this somewhere else besides in an AfD though. Maybe a sports related Wikiproject or something. Which is why I'm going with a procedural keep and no prejudice to doing the AfD again once it's figure out if there is a need for one. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information in these pages relates only those competitions where they represent Pakistan as a team i.e. at regional and continental games and championships. They compete for medals which are awarded as part of that sport teams's and Pakistan's tallies. Some sports which may seem individual such karate, shooting and cycling additionally have their own team events (eg. Kata in Karate) at these competitions. In Pakistan, competing as a team is the primary method of participating in sports at the international level even in sports such as boxing. Very few individual Pakistani sportswomen such as Mahoor Shahzad have competed on their respective tours and those competitions are not included here as they are part of their individual careers and do not represent Pakistan per se. I will over time continue to contribute to these pages so as to enlarge them. Khilari&historian (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia article on national teams it states that "However, it can be applied to groups of individuals representing a country where regular play is done by individuals, and individual scores are aggregated to a get a team result." Khilari&historian (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These articles on Pakistani women's national teams are a useful addition. They now need to be backed up with more sources. In regard to boxing, we have similar articles on men's national teams, e.g. Algeria national boxing team.--Ipigott (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In any major international event amateur boxers represent their country as part of a national team. It might be an individual sport, but an individual can't compete at the Commonwealth Games, European Championships, Asian Games, Pan American Games, World Championships, or Olympics (just to name a few) if they haven't been selected by a national team. – ².O.^Boxing 11:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about these sports, but in athletics, another individual sports, national teams certainly exist. The national team is selected annually and consists of a non-fixed number of athletes that the national federation wants to promote that year. Geschichte (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree it is a useful addition and there is regional coverage.--FrankTursetta (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough coverage for each to remain, and as others have pointed out, even though these athletes compete individually, they do represent as a team.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep naturally meets SIGCOV and passes the NCTEST The Ace in Spades (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with all above and the article contains adequate sourcing to meet the GNG. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advent Technologies[edit]

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

Looks like an advertisement. Corporate spam. fails WP:GNG Priyanjali singh (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to being a non-notable advert article that was created, and has been mainly edited, by COI editors. Adamant1 (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, I request you to make a WP:BEFORE because I believe the article is salvageable. --KartikeyaS (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did a BEFORE. I wouldn't have voted otherwise. I don't have access to newspapers.com though. But it seema like most the time their coverage is trivial. That said, I'm willing to change my vote if the article is improved enough to warrant it. Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the submission was accepted by me at AfC based on plenty of independent citations available on print media like this[1] that can be accessed from newspapers.com. Pinging the submitter @Aweiisytan: is they can improve it. --KartikeyaS (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are a mix of profile pages (the majority), churnalism, and WP:MILL business news. How could it be possible for it to be accepted at Afc in that state? Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 09:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasonings. Reads like an advertisement in various spots and probably hard to improve while keeping to WP:GNG. MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 00:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MagPlex, could you please point out those advertisement spots? I have planned to improve it with proper citations. Thanks. --KartikeyaS (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As well as the above points made by scope_creep regarding sources throughout the article that fail the guidelines mentioned, the "Main Applications" section is what stood out to me at time of writing. On further reflection, it isn't terrible and does indeed inform on the company applications, but I still feel it reads a little like a general product list advertising what the applications are and what they do. It's informative, but perhaps too descriptive within the scope of the article. If you have citations that can show more notability, excellent. I'm definitely for improvement if so. I recommend reading up on WP:ORGCRIT before you implement them and improve the article. That's a good way to make sure the citations are relevant, significant and reliable. MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MagPlex, appreciate your suggestions and will try to improve if I can rescue it. Thanks. --KartikeyaS (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, glad I could help. Good luck. MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Im not seeing the feature coverage in WP:RS that would take this across the WP:GNG line. If they ever do something notable I’m sure there will be real coverage and the page can then be created for real. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No idea how this article passed AfC seeing as how not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, could you please check [2] and [3] ? Both are independent sources having significant coverage. Thanks. --KartikeyaS (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - other coverages I could find in reliable sources are: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] etc. --KartikeyaS (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plus a few more: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] including several Google Scholar citations [17] and this[18]. --KartikeyaS (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi KartikeyaS343, I'll start with the first two you asked me to check. The first from tovima.gr dated 2013 discusses the company, its recent announcement of funding and then essentially "interviews" the CEO for the history of the company and its technology. There is no "Independent Content" (as per WP:ORGIND) in the article and it clearly and obviously fails WP:ORGIND. The second reference from thebest.gr discusses a tour by the Greek PM of the company's labs and is a copy of this Press Release from the company a month previously. This also fails WP:ORGIND. Based on the two references you've put forward, you are not taking WP:NCORP guidelines (and especially WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH sections) into proper consideration. The "test" is not for an article in a reliable source - NCORP guidelines are strict on which references may be used to establish notability which must provide in-depth information on the company and excludes material produced/provided by the company and their executives. A quick perusal of the remaining references demonstrate the same issues and also appear to fail NCORP guidelines. Ideally, coverage by a technology analyst will establish notability or investigation/opinion/analysis *of the company* (not the technology) provided by the author/journalist is required. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, the book "Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Fundamentals, Technologies and Applications" by Detlef Stolten has some reviews on this subject. KartikeyaS (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KartikeyaS343, the company is merely mentioned in passing in that book. On page 28 the author discusses different types of Membrane Electrode Assemblies and the various manufacturers and mentions that this company recently started to offer MEAs that use a different membrane polymer. The book does not discuss the company at all, does not describe any products in detail and the book therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:42, 18 November 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) 17:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Internet[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

While I think both figures involved in the production of the podcast are notable, the podcast does not satisfy the general notability guideline, as it has recieved little substantial coverage in mainstream sources, the only exception I can find is this The Register story which documents the attempted vote manipulation of a Radio Times poll by reddit users who were fans of the podcast but it doesn't actually cover the podcast itself. Other news sources in the article cover the concept of "Freebooting" which was coined by one of the podcast hosts during an episode, but these references to the podcast are passing and do not establish notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second AfD of this article, the first Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hello_Internet in 2014 found concensus to merge to CGP Grey. I have checked and I cannot find any other substantial coverage by searching, satisfying, WP:BEFORE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Polytechnic article seems dedicated to the podcast. Is the source not RS/IS? — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 04:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its a student newspaper from what I can tell, which are marginal for establishing notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see some of your arguments, but I believe there is enough coverage in the listed sources. As a note, thought it doesn't establish notability by itself, Hello Internet is constantly mentioned in lists of notable podcasts worth listening to like these. There is also a (admittedly somewhat weak) argument to made with WP:WEBCRIT's second criteria: the podcast was named to iTunes "Best New Podcasts of 2014" list. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Times is not a notable publication for the purposes of establishing notability. It has only 8k followers on twitter compared to The Verge's 2.7 million for example. I remember seeing another mention in a list from Business Insider, but it was a direct link to a Medium post, which also can't be used for establishing notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although Cerebral726 makes a good point. I wouldn’t object to keeping if notability was more evident in the article text. Elms^super 04:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, on a gut check IAR level, The podcast peaked as the No. 1 iTunes podcast in United Kingdom, United States, Germany, Canada, and Australia. That doesn't sound non-notable to me. Diving into the sources, I'm satisfied GNG is met. The Polytechnic article and Collegian article both qualify in my view. Student media is discounted when it's discussing issues that are potentially of relevance only to a particular college community, but this podcast obviously has a broader reach than Hello, Internet at WPI/Kansas State. Collegian and The Guardian are both lists, but there's sufficient discussion of Hello Internet specifically that it qualifies as a non-trivial mention in my book. Lastly, regarding the possibility of merging, the page has developed to a point where merging the existing material to CGP Grey would cause the podcast section to be UNDUE, so I don't think that would be a good approach. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 00:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A comment on the "merge" possibility: there are two equally valid merge destinations (Brady Haran and CGP Grey), so in practice merging would mean either duplicating a bunch of information or giving undue focus to one host over the other. On that basis I oppose merging. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The links from Twitter, Reddit and other primary sources need to go. The rest of the sources seem to be reliable, including the ones indicated by Sdkb. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sdkb. --IagoQnsi (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has had a troubled history, with some fans of the podcast acting disruptively/inappropriately and impeding the development of the article. This has not been seen so much recently and the subject is notable enough for an article, albeit not by a huge margin. I hope that the article can be improved and that we will not see another influx of bad behaviour should the podcast return. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was a reddit post about the article being up for elimination posted not to long ago, so I'd prepare for some possible canvassing Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two threads here and here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! They really are their own worst enemies, aren't they? (Obviously, I don't mean all of them. Some people are trying to point out how counter-productive it is for them to mess about here.) Such misbehaviour has wasted time and made people less willing to improve the article, leaving it in a state that is less likely to survive than if they had contributed constructively or just kept out of it. I wish they would grow up a bit. Maybe we need indefinite semi-protection if the article is kept? --DanielRigal (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is frequently edited due to “timfoolery” or the community having a laugh with the podcast’s creators. The article should remain as it is generally accurate and representative of the podcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.191.10 (talk • contribs) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 71.95.191.10 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
Delete: Per Nom. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. The podcast did reach #1 for three days on iTunes but not to any iTunes "Best New Podcasts of 2014" list that I could find. A source "Best Podcasts of 2014" states, "Predictably, Serial has won Apple’s award for Best New Podcast of 2014". I could not find the podcast on the Wikipedia list (for source) either. The source provided on the article "favorite podcasts" ("yearly iTunes Store awards for 2014"; Podcasts): "The best emerging new podcasts were The Art of Thinking SMART Podcast, Hello Spoken English, Hello Internet, Wild Oceans, 500 Startups Podcast, NPR: TED Radio Hour Podcast." The "Collegian article" provides one paragraph and a sentence to the subject (out of a list of 5 product reviews) leaving only the The Polytechnic article to actually establish notability. The fact that the names of living people are mentioned means this is subjected to the sourcing criteria of WP:BLP and not generally I like it or WP:IAR. Student media, "list of" sources with minimum coverage, Twitter, and Reddit do not advance notability. Primary sources also do not establish notability. The sources that mention "Freebooting" is not about "the subject". The above mention of the number of Twitter followers is not an indication of notability. Wikipedia has an average of 18 billion views a day and 27 million registered users (followers), far above 8k or 2.7 million, yet it is not considered a reliable source. Statements like "notable enough for an article, albeit not by a huge margin" seems to hint at barely notable which is a half way mark between notable and non-notable. As soon as I find that acceptable criteria (almost notable) on Wikipedia I might change my !vote. Otr500 (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on heretical WP:5P1 grounds ("Wikipedia is an interlinked encyclopedia"). The only significant other source (ie, more than a listicle) I've found has potential independence problems. Yet, per Mx. Granger there's no good single target as a redirect, and there's a benefit to keeping this bluelinked given that there's a number of pages where it is. The closest analogy I can think of in the SNGs is WP:NBAND Criterion 6, where a band with multiple notable members that isn't a clear spin-off of another band may end up kept even with limited coverage. (There hasn't yet been an accepted restricted capsule article format for topics of limited significant reliable independent coverage which clearly intersect multiple clearly notable and separate topics -- which would allow such an article to be stripped back to very limited explanatory text, core links, and a DAB/SIA style footer, and keep it that way until a real level of significant coverage can be proven.) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:01, 20 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MiniD[edit]

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

Per [19] MiniD was renamed Croc.

Per [20] "It's not developed anymore. No one ever used it. But I still love it 😔"

Last code commit was in 2015

Not to be confused with the network interface device or the electronic login system used in Norway. Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. It is not notable as there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. All sources are primary and BEFORE turns up nothing of note. Footlessmouse (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm unable to find a secondary source mentioning MiniD. Indiscriminate code documentation belongs at websites other than Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not going to vie for keeping or deleting this but I did add a few non-primary references (an interview and a magazine article) in the Further reading section since above responders indicated they were unable to find any. However, neither source, despite being non-primary, seemed highly notable in their own right. I also found some other non-primary sources but I did not add them as they were conflations with a different "MINID" and a different "croc". —Uzume (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Cicilia[edit]

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

This person is described in the article as a "second-tier associate" in a criminal organization, and most of the article looks like a WP:COATRACK attacking Marco Rubio, whom most of the references are about. Orlando Cicilia seems nowhere near notable and the whole piece is a major WP:BLP problem. Geschichte (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The "drug ring" section is the only notable thing about her. There isn't even much info about that. There are no sources about her life, her career, or her personal life. Some of these sources, including the Newsweek one, barely mention her. Koridas 📣 05:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: fails BLP1E and NPF. It also fails BLPSTYLE and BLPBALANCE. However there is enough independent coverage to meet SIGCOV The Ace in Spades (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable criminal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. The coverage seems to be inflated due to his relation by affinity to a certain politician. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. WP:EARLY. (non-admin closure) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

37th AVN Awards[edit]

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

~~Notability not established- WP:ROUTINE coverage of a yearly event. 1292simon (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator. I appreciate the reasons identified by other editors and see no benefit in dragging this out. 1292simon (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage in thousands of sources. Right cite (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please share some of these thousands of sources. References in the article are pretty thin for WP:NEVENT notability. Hollywood Reporter: an opinion piece, but okay. Las Vegas Sun: entry on an upcoming events listicle. Routine and not substantial. Daily Beast: incidental mention. LA Weekly: a slide show. Lacks depth. AVN-related sources: primary. Falling short so far on GNG while leaning heavily on the routine current events side. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Improved the article. (see improved and expanded version after some quite easy to find research from multiple sources.) Notable features of this particular event include: It was one of the last events held at the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, before the facility's closure on February 3, 2020. Musical guests featured Doja Cat and DJ Diplo. Actress Angela White won Female Performer of the Year; she became the first actress in history to win the award three times in a row. Maitland Ward, a mainstream actress-turned pornographic actress previously known from Boy Meets World and The Bold and the Beautiful, was recognized with multiple awards after first debuting in the adult industry in 2019. The 2020 awards was the first time a film from Greece received a nomination for Best Foreign Production. Thanks for taking another look at the completely different and improved state of the article from after the start of this nomination discussion, Right cite (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination seems based on equivocation. We can say that something covered every year is covered "routinely" as in regularly, but it doesn't follow that news coverage of it is just "routine" as in run of the mill. None of the examples at ROUTINE seem applicable here. postdlf (talk) 23:36, 14 November 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) 16:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E.B. Allen[edit]

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

Of the sources provided in the article only one is potentially reliable. It consists of an interview with the subject conducted by his granddaughter. Not having found any sources that would establish notability, I would say this is a WP:GNG fail. Now, does his appearance in Harlan County, USA make him notable? WP:NACTOR calls for roles in multiple notable films. Since he has not appeared in more than one film, he is not notable by that standard either. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even mentioned at our Harlan County article. Two sources are for routine military service and one article does not even name him (though I do thank him for his service). Other sources are IMDB and a reproduction of his poem on an unreliable outdated website. There was a schooner named E.B. Allen but it's not named after him. Ultimately, none of the listed sources come close to being in-depth coverage in reliable sources and I can't find anything to support his notabilty. Not remotely close to passing GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 21:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find secondary sources, or coverage beyond demonstration of existence. — Bilorv (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls well short of WP:GNG and I don't believe he was a big enough part of the documentary to meet any inclusive notability standard. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 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) 22:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deanna Niceski[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has played only a few games in a non-fully-professional league not listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of GNG and our already absurdly broad football inclusion guidelines. The fact such an undersourced article has existed for over 10 years is very distressing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she has changed career now [21] [22] but I'm afraid I can't actually find any sources that are independent of her Spiderone 16:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. N:FOOTY and its essay is inadequate for players in top women's football (soccer) leagues around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Men's players in top leagues "around the world" are not automatically Wikipedia-eligible either. Top leagues are wildly dissimilar to one another. Geschichte (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 20:50, 20 November 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) 22:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Hogben[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has played only a few games in a non-fully-professional league not listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - no coverage of her football career but does have some coverage as a wakeboarder though I doubt it's enough [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Spiderone 17:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. N:FOOTY and its essay is inadequate for players in top women's football (soccer) leagues around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Men's players in top leagues "around the world" are not automatically Wikipedia-eligible either. Top leagues are wildly dissimilar to one another. Geschichte (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 20:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open VOGEL[edit]

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

Only primary sources and no indication of notability. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT with absolutely no (that I can find) significant coverage from independent sources. Footlessmouse (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Alliance Party[edit]

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

Tiny, insignificant party that did not even stand for election a single time. The references are completely worthless; I will assess them as they stand at the time of AFD'ing: (1) directory listing (2) passing mention, mentioned in two half sentences (3) primary source (4) directory listing (5) primary source (6) passing mention (7) primary source. Geschichte (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: fails the SIRS test. The Ace in Spades (talk) 23:47, 15 November 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. See my talk page). (non-admin closure) —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt[edit]

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

Creator seems to have ignored my "work on this in draft, it's eligible for deletion" advice, and moved this back. Delete for failing WP:GNG, being WP:PROMO content, and also failing WP:NSCHOOL. Note: Editor lies in their restore edit, check the original draft, it's not a translation. Warned for WP:PAID. Upon searching for sources (With GT at the ready) I found nothing but trivial PR coverage, but request that other editors double-check this claim. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve Yes, the article has issues. Yes, the sourcing is rubbish (for now; can be improved, as a quick Google search shows). Yes, the creator has a (declared) COI, and may not have behaved optimally. But putting all that aside, universities are, and I quote WP:UNIGUIDE (only a guideline, not a policy, but still), "de facto notable and should be included". This isn't just some dodgy private diploma mill, either, it's a publicly-funded German research university. Notable, in other words, by some considerable margin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 14 November 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) 10:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Shand[edit]

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

These refs are nothing more than a sentence, or from non notable sources. There is no substantial biography and I couldn’t find any. The only sources available seem to be her promoting the company she founded which provides private tutors to rich people. She is not a notable person and this looks like advertising. Mramoeba (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mramoeba (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is the article from the BBC but it doesn't constitute significant coverage. There is a lot of non-independent stuff available, but I could not find any reliable coverage either. Therefore, I think this is a WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO fail. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable educator and businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Hammon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can nominators please remember to describe what the topic of the article is? This is about a lower-level army officer. Delete as insignificant figure, the regiment has no article so no merge target. Geschichte (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete military officers at the level Hammon was at do not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross passes #1 of WP:SOLDIER and seems that there is some coverage in RS, though arguable whether or not that satisfies WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross article, there were over 7 000 recipients. Seems pretty basic. Geschichte (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current source is not relevant for considering WP:BASIC/WP:GNG as it is WP:PRIMARY. The idea that every Knight's Cross recipient is notable is patently absurd.—Brigade Piron (talk) 14:29, 14 November 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 18:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial of Chancellors of the Exchequer of Great Britain[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and some other guidelines and policies, like being a trivial intersection of characteristics, and a gallery. People have a personal (or family) coat of arms, and are chancellor: neither has a bearing on the other, the combination doesn't provide any additional information or insight. Fram (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No indication that there is anything encyclopedic about the heraldry of Chancellors of the Exchequer, considered as a group. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Completely random. I don't know why anyone would want this on here. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 18 November 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) 16:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Alves Baroni[edit]

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

Article about footballer who has only played semi-professionally except for three Liga de Honra matches while on loan in 2008 (before his career stalled). There is nearly no online Portuguese-language coverage of this footballer other than database entries (and nothing at all which would be in-depth coverage). Although the three Liga de Honra matches create a presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL, there is a long-standing consensus that when an article comprehensively fails WP:GNG as this does, the presumption isn't valid. Jogurney (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failing GNG far more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our absurdly broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No reason for deletion has been presented: SKRIT #1 (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Office Real Estate Investment Trust[edit]

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

Reason Brodie.w20 (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No rationale has been advanced for deletion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Information is not up to date with strategy constantly evolving. More worthwhile to refer to company website and Dream does not want a wikipedia page for Dream office REIT was given as reason for deletion Spiderone 17:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spiderone, Where was that stated? In any event, that's also not a WP:DELREASON. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look at their contributions here Spiderone 17:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - receives significant coverage and passes WP:NCORP which is to be expected since they are on the Toronto Stock Exchange Spiderone 17:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I also don't understand why this was nominated for deletion. The article appears to meet our editorial requirements. Capt. Milokan (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Elms^super 05:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agnitum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Small private company. Generic. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. A notability tag has been present since mid-2017. scope_creep^Talk 15:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the company no longer exists and article writer has given permission for the article to be deleted. scope_creep^Talk 15:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As much as soft delete could be suitable, would like additional involvement before closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: [28][29][30] and other PCMag content look significant. Article writer requesting deletion doesn't appear to be CSD-applicable as the page has had reasonable contributions from multiple people. However, the article contains a lot of promotional content and I'm not convinced the PCMag content would be enough to justify an article on its own. — Bilorv (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have made improvements to the article, some more maintenance should be enough. Firestar464 (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have put some CN tags in places and fixed some spelling. That is not improving the article. Lets look at the references:

* [31] Company profile page. Non-RS. WP:SIRS

* [32] Yandex acquired Agnitum technology for Yandex Browser Company block. Self-published sourced. Fails WP:SPIP and WP:SIRS

* [] Dead link.

* [33] Firewall guide. Non-RS. No mention of the company.

* [34] Editors choice award for a single magazine. URL doesn't resolve. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 18:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see sources related to the subject, but subject does not have WP:SIGCOV "addressing the topic directly and in detail". Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT, WP:NCORP. // Timothy :: talk 22:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep arguments are weak, particularly in the absence of any sources that show that the publication meets WP:NPERIODICAL or WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formosa Youth[edit]

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

No sources except it's own site, and a google search doesn't give any sources except other wiki sites. Does not appear to be notable. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 15:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a very notable reading source for young readers in Taiwan and often publishes things from Weekly Shōnen Jump. However, it suffers from lack of English sourcing. I think this article is written well but needs editors to help source it better.-- Jjj84206 (talk)
Delete: lack of supporting WP:RS coverage to establish WP:N.xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: no independent coverage The Ace in Spades (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It publishes some of the most popular series there are. So a notable publication. Dream Focus 01:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single independant source has been presented, so currently it very clearly fails WP:GNG. I'm happy to change my mind if significant coverage in reliable sources independant of the subject should surface. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article appears to present relevant information about the Taiwanese equivalent of a notable Japanese serial, as mentioned above. This article needs assistance from a Chinese-language editor to find the secondary sources that would appear to be there in Chinese. I would hate to lose a useful article for lack of the needed language skills to save it.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a number of WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments but that is not the standard of notability for periodicals. There is no indication of WP:SIGCOV and none of the indicators of WP:NMEDIA have been demonstrated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 24 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bimbo Oshobe[edit]

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

Literally all the sources present in the article are about an event that involved people getting evicted from their homes but the sources do not directly discuss the subject of the article. All the sources mainly name drop her/are mere announcements, an example of such is this. The sources never discuss her with in-depth significant coverage thus does not satisfy WP:GNG. A before search turns up empty & links me to her social media accounts & other unreliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 23:52, 15 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simaran Kaur[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A google search brings details about Simran Kaur Hundal. I'm not able to find any substantial information about the subject. The available sources fail WP:SIGCOV. The subject does not appear to pass WP:NACTOR as well. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cyphoidbomb has deleted the article as G5. Though it is valid deletion rationale, but I think the article should be refunded, and this AfD should be given its due time. I would also agree if this AfD is speedy closed as G5? Still I think the better thing would be that article be refunded and deleted per this discussion. Thanks ─ The Aafī on Mobile (^talk) 20:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was largely a copyright infringement, with giant swaths having been copied verbatim from here, for instance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AafiOnMobile and TheAafi: I have refunded the article, but deleted the copyvios. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cyphoidbomb. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (^talk) 20:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LinuxPAE64[edit]

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

This is a bundled nomination of two closely-related software articles created by Jasvantsingh (talk · contribs), both of which fail the general notability guideline.

LinuxPAE64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mayur Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The author has a fairly obvious conflict of interest which can be corroborated with off-wiki evidence (which I won't link it here to avoid outing). – Teratix ₵ 14:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any reliable sources to support the notability of either the Linux kernal or the associated distro page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Software articles of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 17:03, 14 November 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) 12:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ligi Ndogo Grounds[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article has had concerns for many years now. It is, as far as I can tell, a non-notable football stadium that plays host to a team that has almost entirely existed only in the second and third tiers of Kenyan football. I have not seen any evidence of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS which is a clear requirement to pass WP:GNG. It looks, from the picture, to just be a series of public football pitches that can be seen in just about any town or village in any country. I am not opposed to a merge with Ligi Ndogo S.C., however, ideally it would be best if the merged content could be sourced as the contents of the article are currently a clear case of WP:OR from the involved editors. Spiderone 12:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability.Giant Snowman 16:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Just a non-notable football stadium of which there are many multiple thousands worldwide. Otr500 (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis ground also serves as the home ground for the newly promoted Nairobi City Stars that plays in the Kenya Premier League.It might be of note as most home matches will will be played here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owstats (talk • contribs) 07:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a source for that? Spiderone 20:21, 18 November 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. Consensus to delete, we wouldn't move the draft space an article on an individual where there is no evidence of the likelihood that they might become notable in the future Fenix down (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Iannella[edit]

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

Footballer who played only 5 games in a league which fails WP:FOOTYN in that it's not listed here, and also per precedence in this discussion, this discussion, this discussion, this discussion, this discussion, this discussion, this discussion and this discussion. Career is not ongoing; it's closing on 2 years since last time she played a game. Geschichte (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Played her games a in league that is not listed as fully-professional. Besides being a WP:GNG fail, the subject also fails WP:FOOTYN. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Please can editors (yes you @Geschichte and Modussiccandi:!) stop using FOOTYN in AFDs, it's nothing more than an out-of-date WikiProject essay and is therefore, respectfully, worthless for player notabiltiy. What you want to say is "she has not played in a fully-professional league listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL - and also fails WP:GNG".Giant Snowman 16:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out! I should have known better. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Well, WP:FPL is an essay too, so... --SuperJew (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is also used as a qualifier for presumed notability for WP:NFOOTY. And failing the relevant notability guidelines is a valid argument for deletion. FOOTYN is really only useful for certain club and league articles. Jay eyem (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree this article may be WP:TOOSOON in order to meet WP:GNG. WP:FPL is unreliable -- particularly for women's leagues. I've added a couple references and an award in case she kicks ass out of college and an editor wants to recreate the article with what's already here as a starting point. See Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Looks like she's also a cricketer. Hmlarson (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify - still young and plenty of time for her career to resume in whichever sport she chooses; I would have to say that she doesn't look to pass GNG currently though Spiderone 08:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changed my mind. Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. N:FOOTY and its essay is inadequate for players in top women's football (soccer) leagues around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG not demonstrated, as there is no significant coverage of the individual. A Google search did not return any relevant sources. Haven't a clue what the argument in favor using SPORTBASIC is supposed to be. It even argues that individuals are likely to meet the criteria if they have "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)", which hasn't been demonstrated here (i.e. no Women's World Cup appearance). Currently provided citations are fairly trivial with regards to the player in question. Plus there is a more specific criteria for footballers at WP:NFOOTY which the player does not pass either (no senior international appearance or games played in a fully-professional league). And per WP:DEL-REASON, failing the relevant notability criteria is justification for deletion. A discussion about the criteria for NFOOTY belongs at WT:NSPORT, not AfD. Jay eyem (talk) 04:31, 19 November 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. Consensus is to delete, sole keep vote claims GNG but does not back this up with any sources to support the claim. Article as is contains a single primary source, which is a very long way from indicating GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Mahoney[edit]

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

Footballer who played only a few games in a league which fails WP:FOOTYN in that it's not listed here, and also per precedence in this discussion, this discussion, this discussion, this discussion, this discussion, this discussion, this discussion and this discussion. Geschichte (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Please can editors (yes you @Geschichte:!) stop using FOOTYN in AFDs, it's nothing more than an out-of-date WikiProject essay and is therefore, respectfully, worthless for player notabiltiy. What you want to say is "she has not played in a fully-professional league listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL - and also fails WP:GNG".Giant Snowman 16:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet GNG or WP:COLLATH; best source is this which is not enough to build a biography from Spiderone 23:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. N:FOOTY and its essay is inadequate for players in top women's football (soccer) leagues around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 01:19, 19 November 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) 16:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Yarkot[edit]

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

The article does not have any sources and a WP:BEFORE search did not reveal anything other than self-published content. The creator has expressed that he wants to expand the article but there is nothing to suggest the subject is notable. While this might actually be PROD/BLPROD territory, I thought I'd take the article to AfD because the creator would likely object/add a source. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some part of resources is added as a references, kindly request not to delete. Thanks --Yomeo (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any reliable, secondary 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article don't have any reliable source Shin Khant Maung (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 03:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:RS. Even if this mess could be fixed, I don't see any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 17 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking Allowed (TV series)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have been a particularly notable television show (apparently about fringe topics and the like) and quality sources of any kind appear lacking. Hasn't been expanded in years. Laval (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A television show that aired for 14 years on a national television network? (Back before YouTube, when being on a national television network was a big deal?) That's pretty notable. Here's a review of tapes of the show. --GRuban (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The age of the show doesn't in and of itself make it notable. Per the article itself, it was a minor show on a local channel for a few years, and then was on PBS for another few years. Where are all the secondary sources demonstrating notability of this program? See WP:RS and WP:V. Sources about this show that meet our RS and V criteria are scarce, if any at all. The link you use is not a reliable secondary source. Laval (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it should be noted that the article contains not a single reliable source and it is using only primary sources, namely Jeffrey Mishlove's website and his show's YouTube videos. That isn't acceptable enough for a Wikipedia article. Laval (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't make it notable, but it leads to it as a fairly safe assumption. It would be a truly exceptional show that survived for 14 years on a major network with no one watching. As to your second point, Wikipedia:Primary sources can be perfectly reliable sources. It is true that we'd prefer secondary ones, but we are here to document the world's knowledge, and that clearly includes the simple, straightforward facts that this was such a show, that aired on such and such dates, and was hosted by such and such a person. We're far better off having an article on a clearly notable topic such as a 14 year major network television show based on primary sources and a review in Yoga Journal (which is, actually, a secondary source), than no article at all. Perfect is the enemy of good. --GRuban (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: also a book, by the presenter. I'm finding sources about the book but not about the show. WP:NTV/"airing on national television" is about "likely to be notable", not "notable". I checked for newspaper sources, reviews, academic sources etc. Not finding anything. Recreation is possible if someone can find more than the single secondary source currently given. — Bilorv (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE: If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. This is in agreement with the basic of notability as provided by GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. In fact the source "Archetypal Psychology" appears to be nothing more that a contextomy and advertisement. If a source includes some advertisement, as a means to allow the information to be presented, that is one thing, but if a source is used wherein the ultimate goal is the advertisement, it is attempts to commercialize Wikipedia at worse and synthesis at best. YouTube just does not achieve any of the criteria as a source to advance notability. See: Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#YouTube and WP:RSPYT -- Otr500 (talk) 13:36, 17 November 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 14:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Mishlove[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was already deleted before per consensus. Should be deleted again as notability still has not been established and unlikely to be established due to lack of reliable secondary sources. Laval (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There don't appear to be any WP:RS, as all sources I found are either his own published info or not reliable secondary sources. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clearly not notable. Was there any article that would not be kept in 2007?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads more like a resume and sources do not advance notability. Otr500 (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SNOW. TV producers are not normally notable. If need be, redirect to Thinking Allowed (TV series). Bearian (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of units and formations of the Portuguese Army 1987[edit]

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

When this was heading for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (2nd nomination), a new article was created with the same info, but for 1987 instead. The argument was that there was one source for 1987 (compared to the none for 1989). It was already explained at the other AfD that one source isn't sufficient, that WP:GNG requires multiple such sources (reliable, independent, indepth sources adressing the actual topic of the article or list), but this didn't help.

So, delete, per previous discussion and because this fails WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, when broken down by year this borders on an indiscriminate collection of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geschichte (talk • contribs) 12:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minimal sources and no evidence of notability so fails WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Can be improved. BlueD954 (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Which sources about the 1987 Portuguese army would you use to improve this and make it more GNG-compliant? Fram (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have to always reply to every vote? I ask the same to you to my AfDs. BlueD954 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I only reply to votes with weak or incorrect arguments (and even then not to all). "Can be improved" is not a reason to keep an article if you (or anyone else) can't provide the sources needed to improve the article and make the deletion reason incorrect. AfD is not a vote, but an attempt to reach a consensus based on policies and guidelines. This may mean that the minority position "wins" if they actually have the support of said policies and guidelines; but this then often is a surprise to the majority side, which doesn't understand where the closure comes from, why their opinions are dismissed, ... Pointing out flaws in votes during the discussion gives people a chance to provide the necessary support for their arguments, or to change their vote based on the discussion.
  - If you would e.g. have replied with "you could use source X or source Y", and these sources turned out to be actually acceptable, then suddenly your "weak keep" would have become the strong argument, and my "delete for lack of sourcing" would be the weaker position, even though at the moment it is the majority position.
  - A reply, a challenge, to a vote, is not something to be offended about, but a chance to clarify what you mean, to provide support for your position, to actually strengthen the chance that your preferred outcome will happen. Fram (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTCATALOG, and failure to meet WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Unfortunately there is no better reason to keep this article than the article where it was copied from, as we still only have a small entry in an almanac and a pair of fan sites as sources. In fact, there is even less of a reason, as one of the main arguments to keep the 1989 version was the fact that 1989 was an important year in the Cold War due to the fall of the Berlin Wall. 1987 has no such importance. We're left with essentially what amounts to an indiscriminate collection of obscure facts: no one has demonstrated that this particular army, in this particular year, deserves a standalone list of its order of battle. CThomas³ (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't answer to you Fram. BlueD954 (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was the creator. The subject of the list, the Portuguese Army in 1987, meets GNG, and the items within the list are notable in line with WP:NNC. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot06, WP:NNC only applies to individual items in an otherwise notable article or list. The topic itself must first be determined to be notable per the WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. I would be interested to hear why you think two self-published fan sites and an almanac entry qualify. No one doubts your facts, but merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. CThomas³ (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (2nd nomination), which just closed as delete today. Buckshot06, you can claim GNG all you want, but as with the aforementioned article, there are insufficient in-depth reliable sources that indicate that 1987 specifically is a notable year for the Portuguese Army. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PMC and Cthomas3 - this topic doesn't appear to have been discussed in reliable sources. SportingFlyer T·C 12:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per PMC and Cthomas3. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the type of subject has been deemed nonencyclopedic in several discussions. Geschichte (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New vote. Cancelled above. Agree only with Geschichte. BlueD954 (talk) 06:15, 21 November 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 Expedition Robinson 2004. Seems to be the best option, a plausible search term at the very least. Fenix down (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Nath[edit]

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

Following discussion here, I believe it's worth starting a deletion discussion. Nath does not appear to pass WP:NFOOTY as he never played in a fully professional league during his very brief football career. He appeared in a Swedish reality TV show called Expedition Robinson, which is a potential claim to notability, but he didn't win that year so I'm not sure that notability is guaranteed merely by being a contestant. Spiderone 10:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - courtesy ping to those involved in previous discussion @GiantSnowman: @Struway2: @REDMAN 2019: @Johan Elisson: @Ortizesp: Spiderone 11:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the footballer doesn't meet NFOOTY, and didn't even play for Inter Millan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedray (talk • contribs) 11:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable footballer, fails WP:GNG. ~~No point redirecting to Expedition Robinson as not mentioned there.~~ Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - close to GNG but insufficient, and certainly does not meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Expedition Robinson 2004 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's not mentioned at the target article, so the redirect would probably be deleted straight away (not mentioned at target is a commonly used RFD criteria). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: Yes he is - he's clearly listed seventh from the top in the big table and also mentioned by name in the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, in which case redirect is the better option. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or second choice Redirect per Chris above. Nowhere near either NFOOTY or GNG, so I'd delete. But if it's standard to redirect reality show contestants to the article for the show they took part in, do that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Close to GNG with some coverage in news (both regarding his odd football career and Expedition Robinson), but not enough significant coverage. – Elisson • T • C • 20:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Can't really see a way for him to pass GNG here so I would say redirect to the 2004 Expedition Robinson as stated above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Army Regiments (2008)[edit]

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

This page has states the year 2008 and the lead says it is a result of two white papers from 2004 and 2008. It is extremely curious to have a whole list of British Army regiments with hardly any inline references to the years 2004, 2005 and how they link to year 2008. There was no significant Army or wider Defence review close to 2008. These Template:UK Defence Review were the major British Defence reviews and none of them match year 2008. It fails WP:GNG and is WP:SPIP. It was deleted as a WP:PROD yet reverted for no reason. Page should therefore be deleted or merged into pages or articles like Units of the British Army. BlueD954 (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs to be better sourced and repurposed to cover the organisation immediately after the reviews, but it is a perfectly valid article as a list of units after a major reorganisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "They deleted my PROD" is not a DELREASON - and just goes to show how people are being trigger-happy with PROD and using it for controversial/improvable articles. WP:SPIP is against self-promotion? Why is this being cited here? Saying this fails WP:GNG fails on the obvious referencing provided in the article which provides a force structure for the British army as a result of the review. Additional sources are available also (e.g., "The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, 2007–2008", "The British Army, 2008–2009: A Pocket Guide") and failing to consider this also shows a potential WP:BEFORE fail. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Always a love to keep but no one has improve these unsourced articles, no states why 2008 is so important, article only improved by blocked users or users who left Wikipedia. BlueD954 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer not to see a proliferation of orbats. Dormskirk (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As above. Also, there is a list of regiments after each major reform: 1881, 1967, etc; the reason this is 2008, instead of 2003 when the Defence Review was written is because the re-organisation wasn't completed until 2008. SmartyPants22 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and no sign of notability. Mztourist (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea there's no notability for this seems absurd as there are numerous sources available including The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, 2007–2008 and Encyclopedia of Modern British Army Regiments. The latter work has timelines and trees showing the way in which the regiments have been merged and renamed over the years and there's a clearly a need for something of this sort. The article in question is a snapshot and that's a reasonable approach. AfD is not a suitable place to second-guess this per WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since some users refuse to keep 1989 military listings on wikipedia, there is no reason to keep unremarkable 2008 listings. Add a few lines to Delivering Security in a Changing World and delete this one. noclador (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the reasons for the three 1989 listings being deleted are that, according to the nominators at those AfDs, that there are not multiple, independent, and reliable sources available, for those forces, for that year. There are, as per Andrew Davidson, readily available such sources for this army, for this period. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, as proved by multiple, independent, and reliable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:17, 18 November 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) 16:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Moderate Left Liberals[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page:

The Liberal Party of Australia does not have formal factions. It does have informal factions, but they are not national but state-based, and in some cases do not align neatly with "moderate" and "conservative" labels, especially historically. They are certainly not called "Moderate Left" or "Conservative Right" as these pages imply. Although created in good faith, these are not appropriate. An article on Liberal Party factionalism would be terrific down the track but would take a ton of research to be useful. Frickeg (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic is notable, let's say in something like Factions of the Liberal Party of Australia, but the current format is non-encyclopedic in my opinion. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any source which discusses this as a set? I think it's a good article and there may be something salvageable here, but it may fail WP:LISTN and be WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: fails NOR The Ace in Spades (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a subjective judgement required for this categorisation. Could also become outdated quickly. Teraplane (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zocdoc[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are churnalism and run-of-the-mill business news. scope_creep^Talk 08:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well known medical scheduling company and satisfies WP:NCORP. Bretalins (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tau, Len (2020). Raving Patients: The Definitive Guide To Using Reputation Marketing To Attract Hundreds Of New Patients. New York: Morgan James Publishing. ISBN 978-1-64279-781-7. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
2. Khandelwal, Priyanka; Salazar, Leslie Ramos (2020). "Zocdoc: Understanding and Exploring the Market Penetration in Texas". Sage Group. doi:10.4135/9781529706451. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
3. Lohr, Steve (2012-01-30). "Lessons From ZocDoc, a Health Tech Start-Up That Works". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-11-14. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
4. Winkler, Rolfe (2015-08-20). "ZocDoc Valued at $1.8 Billion in New Funding Round". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
5. Clifford, Catherine (2014-02-04). "Entrepreneurs at ZocDoc Say They Can Solve a Major Obamacare Concern". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
6. Brownlee, John (2016-02-17). "Zocdoc's New Identity Puts A Friendly Face On Health Care". Fast Company. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
7. Mangalindan, JP (2014-03-05). "ZocDoc CEO: We'll be nationwide by end of year". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
8. Jeffries, Adrianne (2011-08-23). "The Doctor Will See You Now: How ZocDoc Is Rocking It By Being Just Ambitious Enough". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
9. Siddiqui, Zuhair; Rashid, Rashid (2013). "Cancellations and patient access to physicians: ZocDoc and the evolution of e-medicine". Dermatology Online Journal. 19 (4). Retrieved 2020-11-16.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ZocDoc to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gets coverage, valued at over a billion dollars, obviously reliable sources that cover businesses will cover this. Dream Focus 16:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG with significant coverage spanning ten years from NYT, WaPo (from Cunard's list above), CNN, CNBC, PC World (in the article), among many others cited here and in the article. Also it's a billion-dollar company with millions of customers in thousands of cities. If we're going to have articles about companies, any company, then this is one that we should have an article about. Le v¡v ich 16:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rewritten to remove hatnotes. Sourcing demonstrates notability. Thanks Cunard for finding more sources and formatting them for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although not all of the references listed by Cunard above meet the criteria for establishing notability (for example the WSJ valuation article fails as does the NYT blog post) there are several that meet the criteria. Topic passes GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @HighKing: To make it easier for others, would you mind saying which references are good and made you vote keep here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per WP:GNG at the very least. This article should not have been nominated for deletion. gidonb (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Really, a two billion dollar company not notable? Apart from the sources listed by CUNARD, there are lots of others, and even a cursory GBooks search, for example, produces examples of in-depth coverage such as these [35][36][37]. Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Nsk92 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Hall (businessman)[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ANYBIO. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV. BLP articles should strictly follow sourcing requirements in guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 06:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a very long list of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG as above mentioned.Jjj84206 (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've updated the article with a few more references and clarified the subject's claim to notability. Under his directorship, the first uranium mine in the history of Western Australia was approved. He is also the President of South Australia's mining and energy lobby (SACOME). While the uranium mining sector tends to keep a low profile generally, it is important globally as the sole source of feedstock for nuclear fuel. --Danimations (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources added by Danimations make the subject notable enough to meet GNG. Deus et lex (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree this fails WP:GNG. This level of executives is not of encyclopaedic value. Teraplane (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - he has received coverage in multiple independent sources, and has been significantly involved in nuclear and uranium exploration in Australia. How does this not meet GNG? Deus et lex (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few passing mentions and annoucements of his appointment as CEO do not help to establish notability.Faizal batliwala (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources that are actual published texts are mostly just mentions of his name with little information about him. The source that has most content is the finfeed article, but that one is clearly just a rehashed press release (see for example obvious PR phrases like "outstanding opportunity", "high quality and advanced uranium targets", "longstanding and beneficial relationships"). Until significant coverage is found in reliable sources (WP:RS), tha article should be deleted. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - instead of just complaining why don't you be helpful and look for some sources? I don't see how delete comments like this help in any way. Deus et lex (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources don't provide enough biographical info - only that he heads up several mining companies. I did a quick Google search and couldn't find any info about his early life, such as education and early career, which you'd expect to see if someone were notable enough to be profiled in independent media. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:29, 24 November 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 Svyazi. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Kislyak[edit]

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

Her band is notable, but by herself, not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Svyazi. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the rules of fame WP:GNG, namely: "Significant coverage" in reliable Russian Federal sources, the singer is well covered. This is repeatedly confirmed by references to reliable federal sources themselves.

Leave an article Николай Назаров (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Николай Назаров, is that a keep or delete? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [spout] || 05:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership Initiatives[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nonprofit that fails WP:NORG and WP:NCORP. Deleted a fair number of times around a decade ago, and does not appear to have gained notability since then. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Specific WP:BEFORE search still points to other companies. - Airplane Master (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copy and pasted from a NC-licensed source. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izzat Bridge[edit]

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

The article is an uncredited copy and paste from https://wiki.fibis.org/w/Izat_Bridge (plain text ref numbers from the source were copied but not citations). Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT (Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG). References in the source wiki are two government document database records and a reference to a blog that does not mention the bridge. // Timothy :: talk 09:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 09:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 09:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a pure copy and paste editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedray (talk • contribs) 11:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G12 Speedy This is blatant copyright infringement with an incompatible license (CC-NC-BY-SA). Jumpytoo Talk 20:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: Not sure if it qualifies for a speedy under G11 as the website seems to me a Wiki mirror but it definitely fails WP:GNG.Faizal batliwala (talk) 11:39, 14 November 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) 11:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FootyLight[edit]

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

A non-notable website and mobile app with no significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS ^💬 08:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 08:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of the sources read as promotions; can't find any additional sources for this app. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines... Spyder212 (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This app has not yet established any significant notability, and the article reads like a promotional blurb.TH1980 (talk) 05:33, 15 November 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. Geschichte (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WeFarm[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 07:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per some of the reference which were reliable. Joedray (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable: multiple high quality independent press sources including the BBC, Reuters, Financial Times, City A.M; multiple decent/OK quality Google Scholar references; even a couple of books. Humansdorpie (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've tidied it up a fraction, added a couple of sources, edited some of the less encyclopaedic passages. Humansdorpie (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources given by Humansdorpie. The article needs some work but there the Reuters and Financial Times articles give enough SIGCOV of the company. Jumpytoo Talk 20:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:NWEB with sources indicated by Humansdorpie. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:15, 16 November 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 Reddy. Selectively. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Reddy dynasties and states[edit]

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

The article title itself is debatable topic. These are not either princely states or dynasties, rather Zamindari's. Many of them are not even notable. MRRaja001 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MRRaja001 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Local landlords do not dynasties make. Looks like a vanity project to me. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small article which can be covered on Reddy#History if necessary. Tessaracter (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or (at worst)merge to Reddy where there is a list of Zamindaris, which seem to be the same thing. I suspect in this nom an element of Euro-centrism in history. In Europe, petty polities that are under the suzerainty of a larger polity may well have their own article. Some already do in this case. In that case it is wholly appropriate to have a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reddy as suggested by Peterkingiron and WP:MILL. These seems to be local landed notability, not sovereigns. Please ping me if I am mistaken or if you can find good sources. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sounds about right. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Ffrench[edit]

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

It doesn't seem that there's significant coverage of the subject, and therefore does not meet WP:GNG, and the subject does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:POET TheMrP (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Vancouver Official City Bird Election[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. This one-off survey (not an official election) has no lasting coverage and is best covered in a List of symbols of Vancouver type article rather than having a separate entry. Sounder Bruce 07:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 07:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 07:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not a real election. Can be one sentence somewhere in Vancouver. Reywas92^Talk 08:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: fails LASTING and GEOSCOPE. However, it meets COVERAGE (DEPTH AND DIVERSE). The Ace in Spades (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Geschichte (talk) 16:13, 20 November 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) 07:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelle Francois[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps in fully-pro leagues or for senior NT BlameRuiner (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our absurdly broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As he had played in professional league. Mr-5 / ^{M ✉ / C🖋} 16:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is routine stuff like this and not enough for GNG Spiderone 16:57, 17 November 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 Already moved back to draft. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Safaei (volleyball player)[edit]

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

This article doesn't cite any source. Lynndonald (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lynndonald (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-r2 I moved it back to draft two minutes before this AFD was opened. Article creator has a long history of unsourced edits. Captain Calm (talk) 06:39, 13 November 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alice H. Parker[edit]

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

Notability. Are there any good cites for this being a notable invention, or just something that got patented? Qwirkle (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG: [38], [39], [40], [41]. She is frequently cited as a Black woman inventor, often in books for children—evidently she is viewed as a role model for many. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad when pople think that the only way to create role models is to lie.^{[citation needed]} Why do you think Wikipedia should be part of such a despicable process? Qwirkle (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you accusing me of lying when I have provided four sources to indicate the notability of the subject? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the lie here? I'm not seeing anything that appears to be a lie anywhere. The lady got a patent, and has received decent coverage for it, so she's notable. Not clear what the issue is here. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the sources describe an entirely imaginary impact of the design,^{[citation needed]} when it is patently obvious, so to speak, that those claims are false.^{[citation needed]} Qwirkle (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Making vague accusations about the veracity of sources is not an especially constructive way of approaching AfD. What, specifically, do you think is false? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the least bit vague about it. Nearly every claim made outside of the mere existence of the subject and the patent is complete crap.^{[citation needed]} What specific examples would you like? This was not the first example of a natural gas air heater,^{[citation needed]} or of zone heating.^{[citation needed]} It did not relieve the good suburbanites of Princeton of the onerous burden of chopping firewood. Every single claim found in the many crap cites offered up to the hapless reader are false except the very basic fact of the patent.^{[citation needed]} Qwirkle (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that something is problematic within the article, AFD is not cleanup. The subject is clearly notable, even if the sources indicate that the patent didn't see particularly widespread use. The sources do demonstrate notability, though. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a highly influential African-American woman as shown by sources above and ones cited in the article Spiderone 10:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is about a person, and the sources provided in the article (along with those identified above) demonstrate that the person meets the notability standard. The argument for deletion questions the notability of her invention, which is not relevant. Alansohn (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once you remove the “facts” which are questionable, and the sources which are bad, this is article would be reduced to a single sentence, which hardly suggests notability, except, perhaps in New Jersey. Qwirkle (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure entirely what the nominator's concern is here. True, some of the sources in the article are junk, but in my opinion, between the Siouxland News video (from South Dakota, so she's not just a NJ phenomenon), the elementary school library book linked by AleatoryPonderings, and then the Star-Ledger piece, Greenwood Publishing Group book, and EGIA group piece cited in the article, I'm seeing notability here. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this looks okay. I'm definitely not seeing any notability issues here. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Hog Farm pretty much said what I was going to. The sourcing to begin with wasn't great, but between here and there, we've enough to get over the bar. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AleatoryPonderings. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (^talk) 21:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above keepers. While I had seen some of Qwirkle's points before and was going to refrain from voting, they throw this baby out with the perceived bathwater by edit warring over the innocuous Further reading section and by referring to those who ask for better behavior in this and another woman inventor AfD as trolls. I question their judgment to the point that it has brought about a chill. Enjoy the snowy weekend, all. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep GNG requires a specific amount RS coverage, which she has. It is a service to our readers to have articles about people they are likely to read about elsewhere. GNG does not require that every editor is impressed by the reason for coverage. To me, Alice H. Parker's achievement is impressive and so is she, much more than many people with lengthy bios. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have sufficient coverage for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of this article, a woman inventor, clearly meets GNG criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as the nominator is asking for sources to back up the claims of this article, it would be nice if they did the same with their claims in this afd (citation needed tags have been added in appropriate places). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reader will note that User:Coolabahapple requires a citation for the idea that it is sad to create role models by lying. Nothing more to be said, is there? Qwirkle (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, joining above editors playing in the snow, an "Awards/Legacy" section could also be added to the article with words about the National Society of Black Physicists honoring Parker (see here), and New Jersey Chamber of Commerce "Alice H. Parker Women Leaders in Innovation Award" (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 18 November 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. Consensus is clear, particularly in light of the noted dearth of GNG-worthy references. BD2412 T 05:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PathWater[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Sources are all press releases, mentions, announcements, and comments from those associated with the company.

REF # 1 Not independent of the subject

REF # 1 Lacks in-depth significant coverage

REF # 3 Press release article [42]

REF # 4 Press release article [43]

REF # 5 mentions in passing

REF # 6 mentions in passing

All in all sources do not provide significant, in-depth, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. Google search of it mostly brings up PR articles. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom and Umakant Bhalerao. A source that includes the subject as "one of three" is just passing mention. Aquahydrate could make the same claims and might have a better chance since it includes Mark Wahlberg, Sean Combs and Frank Khalid (international recognition), except the sources for these and the likes of Alkahydrate as well as the many hundreds of others, are largely promotional. Otr500 (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator, does not meet notability levels.VViking_TalkEdits 21:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with nominator, it does meet notability levels. Source 1, as mentioned by nominator, is the publication of a major university where the founders studied. Isn't that a primary source? Sources 5 and 6 do not mention in passing, they are about how school districts are using the bottles. Compared to Princes Gate Spring Water, Ice Mountain (water), or Tipperary Natural Mineral Water this article seems well sourced. I added a few additional sources. Johnsonhills_TalkEdits 04:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnsonhills: Right, the company founders are alumni of Foothill and therefore the Foothill article is a primary source and not independent of the subject per WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources do not help demonstrate notability. References 5 and 6 literally mention the subject in passing and fails WP:SIGCOV. I see you have added only one reference which is written by a contributor and not by a CNET staff and quite an example of dependent coverage, please see here (point # 4).--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:07, 19 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzbuzz[edit]

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

PROD rationale: Zero indication of notability. Sourced only to own website since birth. Searching on Google, JSTOR (since it's educational and I thought maybe someone mentioned it in a paper), and Newspapers.com (since it's kids lit), as well as Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly (the major book reviewing periodicals) brought absolutely zero results, not even trivial mentions.

De-PROD'd by DGG with rationale "needs ck in uk sources not us sources". Okay, well, Google doesn't only pull American results, and neither does JSTOR. Kirkus and PW both review plenty of British-published books even if they are American-based, and a quick Google search tells me that there actually isn't a British equivalent periodical.

Double checked myself looking at Google Books adding "granada" (the publisher) and came up with no more than a couple of trivial mentions in lists of books published. No in-depth content or reviews found. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. In addition to being a publisher of research- and college-level academic books, OUP is in the UK a general publisher, publishing among other things lower level textbooks. this is a textbook for slow learners designed for uk primary schools [44], [45] General review sources in any country do not review such books--educational publications do. Educational sources differ between countries. Wikipedia is very weak on such materials, probably because few people here are interested. I would know how to search such materials in the US. I do not in the UK. The existence of these books is verified, the reputation of the publisher gives at least some likelihood of notability. I do not list for deletion articles where there might ell be sources I would be incapable of checking, but leave them for those who would be able to confirm that there are no secondary sources. (I do nominate those whereI could not find sources if it seems unlikely from the face of it that there would be sources, or whose existence I cannot confirm at all.) DGG' ( talk ) 04:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be a cow, but "the reputation of the publisher gives at least some likelihood of notability"? You and I have both been here long enough to know notability is not inherited, it's argued on the merit of sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

first, I did not say "the reputation of the publisher proves notability ", but that it "gives some indication". Second, to some degree is publishing the reputation of the publisher is more relevant than in some other fields, Third, I am certainly saying that in a field where we have no other landmarks to go by, where the usual sort of sources are irrelevant or inaccessible to us, we should to go by what indications we may have. We both have enough experience here to know that we often , but not always, use the GNG guideline.. If we always used it literally it would be more than a guideline, and attempts to promote it to policy have failed repeatedly. DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC) ``[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest notability, OUP or not. If OUP's own website delivers no hits on 'Fuzzbuzz', meaning they've clearly long since buried it and moved on, why should WP need to maintain a catalogue of all their past publications, no matter how obscure? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being a lightly annotated web directory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one book review, which by itself wouldn't be enough to warrant an article, but there might be just enough coverage in the scholarly literature on education techniques that something could be written. I stubbified the page so it no longer reads like an advertisement. XOR'easter (talk) 20:19, 13 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Sourced mostly to the militia's own website. Not enough independent sourcing to establish notability. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources used in article do not establish notability and the promotional tone of the current article is due to reliance on the group's own website. Obviously this is a highly controversial topic area (private militias, armed groups, etc) and it is paramount to have sufficient sources that are both reliable and verifiable. It doesn't appear that these criteria are able to be met. Laval (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion of this article. At present it lacks a sufficient number of reliable secondary sources to support the statements being made. If someone can find adequate secondary sources, I might change my mind. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this article need for deletion? They appear to have references and it looks like this group exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.194.165.240 (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the nomination statement—Wikipedia has a notability policy that requires substantial coverage in independent sources. This group does not have that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:00, 16 November 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 14:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Amherst, Massachusetts[edit]

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

Found in CAT:NN cleanup (over 60,000 articles in the backlog there, so I'd recommend that everyone try to take a look there occassionally). I'm not seeing a WP:LISTN pass: Emporis seems to be the only source listing these besides here, and I don't think a single skyscraper database is enough to create a LISTN pass for this list. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pfft. I'm a bloody resident of the town, and I can't imagine what makes such a list for the size of the municipality remotely notable. Granted, it's all obvious, and I don't even have to read the article to know the top seven: the UMass library, the five residential towers of Southwest, and GRC. To quote John Emdall ... sooo what. Biiiig deal. Ravenswing 07:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list that's only sourced to Emporis and can only be sourced to that and any other similar websites should be deleted. I see absolutely no reason why a town with a population of less than 40k warrants one of these articles. The 'tall' buildings are all on the same campus and there is zero evidence to suggest that reliable sources are covering these buildings as a group in reference to how tall they are. Spiderone 10:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There don't seem to be other sources supporting these conclusions; it's really just a list of tallest buildings at UMass Amherst. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_skyscrapers: Amherst is neither a large city nor a resort; no building on the list is over 55 years old or 60 stories. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 17 November 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. No deletion since 2008 does not justify salting. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tavant Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. I would have PRODed this but it went to AfD back in 2006, where it was deleted as a copyright violation. – Teratix ₵ 02:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 02:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 02:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 02:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a closer look at the deletion log and this article's been recreated on multiple occasions, so a pinch of salt would not go astray. – Teratix ₵ 02:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:19, 13 November 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrayent[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. In my check for sources I did find a few that could potentially contribute to notability; this article from The Verge and this mention in Data Privacy for the Smart Grid. However, The Verge article is only a little more than a passing mention in an article that mainly focuses on the company's competitors, and the book only mentions Arrayent as an example of IoT privacy concerns, both of which are considered trivial coverage when determining companies' notability. All other sources are either non-independent, unreliable, or only provide routine coverage (mostly relating to Prodea's acquisition of the company). – Teratix ₵ 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 01:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell when it comes to the sourcing and otherwise this is a pretty WP:MILL tech company that doesn't have anything notable about it. Sure, they might have some notable costumers, but notability isn't inherited. What matters is if there are multiple in-depth reliable sources discussing the company and there isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:23, 15 November 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 14:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaos Okekuoyen[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete, page was copy-and-paste-moved into mainspace by one of the primary authors, bypassing WP:AFC process. It had been declined already by at least one AFC reviewer as non-notable. Fails WP:NATHLETE. See this old edit for some of the AFC commentary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Had tagged with WP:CSD#G6 previously from Draft:Nikos Okekuoyen, even if it weren't a copy-paste move, it would be a WP:CSD#A7 — IVORK _Talk 01:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a history merge, so that draft may turn into a redirect shortly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Update: History has been merged. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable basketball player. Would need better sources if notability was assumed, which it isn't. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Wilson (Pennsylvania politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as the subject is only notable for his election to the Pittsburgh City Council in 2019. None of the cited sources establish notability beyond the election, and, per NPOL, simply being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. There's also very likely a WP:COI issue here, as the article has been entirely written by Popscreenshot, who is the author of the photograph used in the article. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is unmerited. I don't know Wilson. I take photos of local notables at public events. Just because I take their photo does not mean I know them. I am not paid or asked to create any contributions to Wikipedia. Popscreenshot (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a related deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey O'Connor (2nd nomination). ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 14:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete city council members are not default notable. Not enough sourcing to show notability that way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I created this article as part of my contributions to Pittsburgh here. I agree Bobby Wilson may not pass WP:NPOL. I was hoping to fill out the entire city council but see the error now. Thank you for helping clarify WP:NPOL for me. Popscreenshot (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Popscreenshot, thanks for your continued contributions! :) Bkissin (talk) 18:01, 19 November 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Tobias[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player, now retired. Fails WP:NBASE Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable minor league player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Lackluster minor league player that retired and became a scout. A good subject to be listed in the all-inclusive Baseball-Reference.com just not so much encyclopedic. Otr500 (talk) 14:28, 17 November 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 14:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UK Watch[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB; tagged for notability since 2009 with no improvement. A website that apparently failed to launch, since the URL is now occupied by an unrelated site. The lone source is barely a blurb and I wasn't able to find anything else. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much impossible to run a clean search and not end up with dozens of hits for Rolex watches, but I can’t find anything about it. Mccapra (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: PINGing @Beganlocal, Phil Bridger, and Phantomsteve, who PRODed, seconded, and objected to this being deleted in 2010, and therefore may be interested in this discussion. Seagull123 Φ 15:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I objected to the PROD as the reason given was to my eyes insufficient. However, 10 years later this article isn't in a state where it meets the criteria for inclusion, and a search failed to find suitable sourcing. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 01:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the project. Search results return mostly watches sold in UK. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG Hun ter 00:40, 19 November 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.