The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mambo Graphics. Plainly there is no consensus to keep here, leaving the only matter to be considered as whether to delete or redirect. The only keep !vote is based on the view that interviews are sufficient to sustain notability, a view that was decisively countered. Deus et lex's point about WP:ATD meaning this is a preferred route is conclusive, and the delete voters were not opposed to this either. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dare Jennings[edit]

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

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

No evidence of any notability. The company he created possibly scrapes by the notability guidelines but this BLP is woefully inadequately supported by sources which seem to be an interview , an article about the company selling out and a commentary on seling the business. Searches reveal nothing. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mambo Graphics. An obvious alternative to deletion that must be considered before deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An interview in RS/IS is SIGCOV for notability in my book.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment any interview is rarely satisfactory for establishing notability as it is in the subject's own words. I haven't a clue what "RS/IS" is but it doesn't seem to be one of the refs quoted and my searches fail to find anything of that name.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if an WP:RS/WP:IS features an interview of a subject, that is WP:SIGCOV for establishing notability. Interviews are primary with respect to establishing specific facts. But SIGCOV is easily established with interviews. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as suggested to Mambo Graphics. Whenever I see a two-sentence BLP and coverage so shallow that a fully-flesh biography is not possible, its time to delete or redirect. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Out of three sources, two are interviews which are primary and do not count towards establishing notability. I am not opposed to redirect either.Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews in RS/IS do count as SIGCOV for establishing notability. They just are not good sources of factual information. (If an RS/IS considered someone important enough to interview them, that's not trivial.) — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. The attempts to establish notability for "well known businessmen" more often than not come with the distinct aroma of professional -if we may generously exaggerate a bit- assistance. This one is rather lame. A Redirect would not be out of place, though. -The Gnome (talk) 14:11, 23 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 18:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vetekina Malafu[edit]

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

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as at least one source is “substantial coverage”, viz. an article about Malafu. Moonraker (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:38, 10 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – All news sources I found are strictly mentions with no depth, frequently not even the subject of the one sentence where he is mentioned. Everything else is short statement transactions of the WP:ROUTINE variety. A synopsis of his career by Doug Coil when he signed to Old Glory is about as deep as it gets, and I have reservations about his website as he is the primary writer and editor per WP:RSCONTEXT. It would still only be a single source anyways. Yosemiter (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails WP:NRU. -The Gnome (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet NRU or GNG Spiderone 20:58, 23 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) 20:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motel on Murder Mountain[edit]

Motel on Murder Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing this book per WP:GNG / WP:NBOOK. ... discospinster _talk 19:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This book Motel on Murder Mountain is significant to the weird menace sub-genre, and it's revival. I created the page to shine a new light on an extinct genre. This book has been mentioned in multiple articles and listings as I have mentioned in the sources section and references section. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyGhost1313 (talk • contribs) 15:11, November 8, 2020 (UTC)

• I'm moving this over from the AfD's talk page. I also want to note that I blocked the account as being for promotion only - there is more info on the user's talk page. Since I blocked the user I won't make a formal argument for or against deletion, however I will note that the sources are either unusable (Wikipedia), are Goodreads listings or forum posts created by the novella author (database, primary), books written by the novella author (primary), or do not mention the author or novella at all (ie, cannot establish notability and could be original research if used for anything about the book in specific). This will need coverage in independent and reliable sources if notability is to be proven. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is covering a notable title that is new to the market and is attempting to revive the Weird Menace sub-genre. There is several articles written about the audiobook as well as the paperback with more high level mentions coming, they will be added soon. This was created for the better of the genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyGhost1313 (talk • contribs) 18:36, November 9, 2020 (UTC)

• Moved this one down as well from the top of the page. Note: if this is deleted as a soft delete I'd recommend admins request proof of notability beforehand, otherwise it may be an easy target for further deletion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A self-published book whose Wikipedia article was created by the author. Not a single one of the sources included is actually viable - they are either from non-reliable sources or do not mention the book at all. Searching for additional sources turns up absolutely nothing. Rorshacma (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the coverage I have found doesn't qualify as IRS - only user generated and connected to the subject (and mainly amazon and bookreads). It's a WP:GNG no for me. Less Unless (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the subject fails all criteria for notability. The references already cited are just more books by the same author, the epitome of a pefectly cyclical argument. More sources are harder to find than water on the sun. This is just one more episode in the never ending series of using Wikipedia as a promotional platform. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Troxler[edit]

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

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as at least one source is “substantial coverage”, viz. an article about Troxler and not a brief mention. Moonraker (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – No hits in reliable news sources for either Cameron or Cam Troxler. As far as I can see, the only media source that covers him is DJCoil Rugby (which I pointed out previously, is on the low end of WP:RS due to WP:RSCONTEXT; Doug Coil is essentially the only writer and editor for that website). Mr. Coil did at least appear to give the subject a full "profile" that would seem to make that single source less than WP:ROUTINE. However, outside of single paragraph added (which consists of his entire 2019 season summary: "Cam played 8 minutes in two matches"), it is copy-n-paste identical to the his routine transaction summary of clubs he once played for shown here. As there are no other independent reliable sources of significant depth, he currently fails WP:GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of significant coverage. Does not qualify under WP:GNG or WP:NRU. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no coverage for 'Cameron Troxler' or 'Cam Troxler' that would be enough for GNG Spiderone 21:41, 25 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Rogers[edit]

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

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as the sources are “substantial coverage”, viz. articles about Rogers and not brief mentions. Starting to wonder if you are proposing the deletion of a whole squad, if so I do wonder what is going on here. Moonraker (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Large numbers of articles were created under the basis that they passed WP:NRU (Major League Rugby was added with no discussion before being removed), and so pages have been created that are not notable. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is no independent significant coverage there, and the level within the sport is too low. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails to meet WP:GNG. No news hits and only covered in WP:ROUTINE transactions or list-based mentions. Yosemiter (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - plenty of routine coverage which does not amount to passing GNG Spiderone 11:34, 25 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) 20:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hughston[edit]

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

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news on the player signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as the sources provide “substantial coverage”, viz. articles about Hughston and not brief mentions. Moonraker (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sourcing is not the type that passes GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. The sources are not independent of the subject or its leagues, or are unreliable. SportingFlyer T·C 14:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of quality sources available for GNG Spiderone 22:44, 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McLean (American rugby player)[edit]

Jack McLean (American rugby player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as the sources are “substantial coverage”, viz. articles about McLean and not brief mentions. Moonraker (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Coverage consists of a single WP:ROUTINE transaction with very little depth. The WP:COPYVIO from this article does not help either. Yosemiter (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject doesn't meet WP:NRU, or even WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources do not establish notability Spiderone 20:22, 23 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) 09:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Brown (rugby union)[edit]

Josh Brown (rugby union) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of player signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as the sources are “substantial coverage”, viz. articles about Brown and not brief mentions. But I would suggest adding a ((refimprove)) tag. Moonraker (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of sources that actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG. All news sources I found were merely mentions or WP:ROUTINE transactions, primarily covered in less-than WP:RS sites. Yosemiter (talk) 18:08, 23 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) 21:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell Maksinczuk Ortega[edit]

Wendell Maksinczuk Ortega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about footballer who has never played in a fully-pro league (typically as his club's third or fourth goalkeeper). There is nearly no online Portuguese-language coverage of this footballer other than database entries and transfer announcements such as this which explains his club released him mid-season after he wasn't used (and nothing at all which would be in-depth coverage). He has appeared only in Brazilian state championships (Candango 1, Goiano 1 and Paulista A3), the Brasileiro Série D, and a single Copa do Brasil match, none of which satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly an apology. I misread an appearance in the Copa do Brasil as an appearance in Série A when removing the prod on the article. Secondly, there is a long, long recurring argument at WT:FOOTY regarding Série C and Série D in Brazil being fully professional or not. Both have identical rules (a certain number of amateur players, under a certain age, can be registered in squads), and yet for historical reasons Série C is on WP:FPL but Série D isn't. The result of this should either be to add Série D to the FPL or remove Série C from the FPL. Otherwise we are being inconsistent. Gricehead (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No apology is necessary, as I had to check his career history when doing a WP:BEFORE check in any case. :)

As far as whether Série C is a fully-pro league, I am very skeptical and believe it should be removed from the list at FPL until we have solid sourcing to support its inclusion. Série D certainly lacks that sourcing as well. Jogurney (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG, likely fails NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and FOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per rationale by both Johnpacklambert & GiantSnowman. Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Reses[edit]

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

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

Resume-like BLP of businesswoman with no clear claim of notability, sourced mainly to corporate news pieces about new appointments. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd contend that Reses' passes WP:BIO with ongoing and in-depth coverage from RS like WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/square-names-yahoos-jackie-reses-to-head-its-lending-business-1445266066), Business Insider (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-yahoo-decides-to-acquire-2014-7 & https://www.businessinsider.com/jacqueline-reses-yahoos-ma-chief-2014-9) and Fortune (https://fortune.com/2020/06/16/squares-head-of-lending-thinks-the-ppp-still-needs-more-changes-to-help-the-smallest-businesses/), among others if you track back through Google News.

Given the available RS, I'd encourage continuing to build out the entry rather than outright deletion, erring on the side of increasing representation of women in finance.BelBivDov (talk)

• Delete The references are really poor and what references are there are a mix of appointment announcements, press-release, deprecated sources like Techcrunch and churnalism. The references present above, as proof that she notable are in a similar state. The first is an announcement, is dependent. The 2nd one is a name mention only. The 3rd is similar and 4th one is similar. It is a dependent source. None of them are secondary, and none of them are in-depth. They are run WP:MILL, WP:SPIP sources. scope_creep^Talk 13:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how either of the Business Insider articles specifically are dependent or mill; I'm not seeing any sign of direct contribution or churnalism. Providing a couple more articles I just found as comment below. BelBivDov (talk)

• Keep passes WP:BASIC based on multiple independent sources combined to demonstrate notability and if you do a search there is a recent American Banker article on her.--FrankTursetta (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Her business roles and position at the San Francisco Fed are a strong claim of notability, and the sources in the article and those identified above provide the reliable and verifiable coverage that support that claim. Alansohn (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment found additional articles with significant coverage, including a lengthy piece from Bloomberg w deals made while at Yahoo! (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-10/yahoo-dealmaker-reses-targets-mobile-talent-in-m-a-spree-tech?sref=fBWIv79e), and articles that describe her move from Yahoo! to Square, not as a routine announcement, but as more of a poaching situation (https://www.ft.com/content/031a3c36-7672-11e5-933d-efcdc3c11c89 & https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2015/10/19/square-hires-female-executive-jacqueline-reses-away-from-yahoo-ahead-of-ipo/?sh=7088f17f2558). I had intentionally ignored the Forbes article, but now I see it was written by a Staff writer. On my read, these are neither dependent or run of the mill. BelBivDov (talk)
• Keep The subject clearly passes WP:GNG. I have added some of the mentioned sources to the article to provide a clearer view (I haven't added the 2 last as they have the same information as the rest). Less Unless (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to meet GNG, pretty notable for a businessperson. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isn't even close. The only thing the article needs is some updating, as I found references to her resignation from Square effective last month, and a $5 million donation to the Wharton School of Business together with her husband. If this is deleted because it fails GNG, notability needs a serious overhaul.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:51, 25 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. Both !votes by User:Behappy 29 are disregarded. No case has been made for encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 02:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Stankevych[edit]

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

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

The artist does not seem to meet WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Since the subject is ukranian, my WP:BEFORE did not yield much in english searches. There may be references in non english sources. The article creator has been claiming that this person is notable. Nominating for AfD to decide on that. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepPavel Stankevych won a bronze medal on one of the famous cirque festival in Paris.He is famous handstand artist.His video has millions views.Former of Cirque Du Soleil.Was invited guest on Das Supertalent,Tu Si Que Vales,Eso lo Hago Yo and because of his viral video (where he stand up from the split without hands) was invited to famous show Ellen Dedgeneres. But anyway he is laureate on professional Paris Cirque Festival Cirque De Demain.All links including in article.Sometimes people pronounce his last name incorrectly "Stankevich" Behappy 29 (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:TOOSOON, and lack of following per WP:ENT. First, let's start with social media: he has zero Wheatons, he has only 53k followers on Instagram, about 23k "like" him on Facebook (compared to over 5k for me?!), and his biggest YouTube video was a single appearance on Ellen. Secondly, I don't see any coverage about him in reliable sources, other than the aforementioned interviews/talent shows. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What's a "Wheaton"? jp×g 02:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry what?Only 53k on Instagram?First of all is it nothing?And since when on Wikipedia articles are given for the number of subscribers on Instagram?And i checked he has 23k followers on Facebook and 150k on Tik Tok.He has a lot of big video on Youtube.Checked him on all languages.(Deutsch,Italian Spanish and Russian).Former of Cirque Du Soleil.Now working with Spiegelworld in Las Vegas. And in any case, he is a laureate of the prestigious circus festival in Paris Behappy 29 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment— For what it's worth, this article has also been nominated for deletion on Russian Wikipedia and has generated quite a bit of discussion so far. Notably, none of them over there have found Ukrainian or Russian articles in support of his notability; they are also relying on the sources from Western websites. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have formatted the references in the article to comply with the guidelines and to have a better look on who is who. Unfortunately the coverage that can be called significant is provided by sources that are not independent or too local to be considered reliable. The subject fails notability guidelines for now. Less Unless (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I just checked on Russian Wikipedia not everyone agree with deletion.They founded a lot of information on Google and Youtube.And on official website of Paris circus festival.I founded also information on German languages and saw live his performing on Ellen Show.Checked also on Italian and Spanish websites.They are all original.Behappy 29 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI checked all websites are original websites.He is former of Cirque Du Soleil.All websites on German are originals like Italian and Spanish. Articles like Anna Stankus Jinny Jacinto Olga Pikhienko are the same articles for their achievements at the Paris Festival.And of course I checked the original website from one of the biggest and prestige circus festival in Paris where Cirque De Demain he won a bronze medal.I even founded awarding of this festival.Now he is performing in Las Vegas with one of the best company Spiegelworld directed by Cal McCrystal.Behappy 29 (talk) 16:56, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Maurice[edit]

The Amazing Maurice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence the film has entered main production, all sourced content can be merged comfortably into the book's article, this should be drafted until pre-production is shown to be notable or film is shown to enter main production, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 13:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Voice cast has been established and art from the film has been released, a practice not done unless the film is indeed in production. Rusted AutoParts 14:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with @Rusted AutoParts. Enough information about the film is available which merits its inclusion as a page. Added some more sources this morning, showing that the film has been broadly covered in various news outlets, which is more than can be said about a lot of films in this stage of production. I will also add that unlike upcoming films like Nimona (coming in 2022), the cast is actually named, so that makes it worth keeping as a page at the present, along with what the other user has stated.Historyday01 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The notability requirements for films is that they have multiple in-depth reviews. Which this doesn't have since it's not released yet. Therefore, this should be deleted on WP:TOSOON grounds. The sources that are in the article are extremely trivial. For instance them picking cast members. Which all movies do. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda bogus. There'd be multiple upcoming films that fail since they aren't out and reviewed yet. Rusted AutoParts 03:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD isn't about other films. Plus, it's not like the article can't be recreated pretty easily when it comes out and there reviews of it (if there are any). --Adamant1 (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, Adamant1. I think there are enough sources when it comes to this film. If there weren't as many sources, I would agree with you, but there are, in this case.Historyday01 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s kind of a non-answer, Adam. Saying “this isn’t about other films” doesn’t negate the fact you’re inpsijg a standard here that is not being applied elsewhere. It’s not a fair reason to advocate for deletion. Rusted AutoParts 17:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly fine answer. As Robert McClenon say's, films in production are only notable if there is something particularly notable about the production itself. Which isn't the case here. I don't have a double standard about it, because I would vote exactly the same way for the same reason if the other films had AfDs. They don't though. So they really aren't relevant. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your point was that it didn’t have “multiple in-depth reviews”, not “what Robert McClenon said”. Having “multiple in-depth reviews” doesn’t occur until after release, so no, it’s not a fine answer, it’s an unfair standard you’re applying here and not to other articles. Rusted AutoParts 20:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Adamant1 is applying an unfair standard here, without question. Historyday01 (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: Feel free to point out another AfD about a film where I voted keep purely on the existence of sources about the casting. Until then, I'd appreciate it if you AGF and not make things personal. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to ping me in this conversation, Adamant1, but whatever. I didn't name call or say anything bad about your character as a person, so I'm not getting "personal," whatever that means.Historyday01 (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Please read the film notability guideline in detail again. The guideline is often misread, and films in production sometimes get accepted because the guideline is misread, but films in production are only notable if production itself is notable. Normally notability does require reviews, and reviews require that the movie be viewed. The fact that the guideline is often misread doesn't change the guideline, which is that unreleased films are seldom notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly constitutes “notable production”? Extensive reporting on where and when it films? How many sources talk about it? What’s wrong with this articles sources to say “this production isn’t notable”? Rusted AutoParts 20:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Film isn't slated for release until sometime in 2022, voice actors were JUST cast. Animation may or may not have already begun...and even if it has, its production is hardly notable yet. The arguments being made that there are sources all center around the announcements of the film/cast. History has shown that lots of animated films get announced and then never get made/released, for example Pixar's Newt...announced (with cast) in 2008 with release in 2011. Cancelled in 2010. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per @Rusted AutoParts. The film has already started production and its references make it notable as an article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is draftifying an option? That seems like a reasonable ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting it might not be a good option if the film isn't comming out until sometime in 2022. Since that's a really long time until it will likely be notable for recreation if it ever is. I doubt the production will be notable enough on its own between now and then. Adamant1 (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm, I see your point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per discussion, and the number of sources. Production seems to be going along, so keeping the article for a few more months to see if the film is still being worked on and still scheduled for release probably makes the most sense. As of now it's an anticipated film in production with continually sourced updates, which seems a sound 'keep' to me. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Randy Kryn on this one. There are a good number of sources, production is moving forward, and the film is being worked on, meaning it's an anticipated film with various updates, meaning it should be kept. Historyday01 (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents#Adaptations, which already mentions this. The whole content of this article could be worked into that paragraph with no loss of information, and broken out into an article again at some appropriate later point. BD2412 T 02:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a merge. Maybe other people who voted deleted would also. If so, I'll change my vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also support a merge, as indicated in my rationale. The known content about this film can easily fit into a paragraph that would not overwhelm the other article. BOVINEBOY2008 11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can definitely see Wikipedia users doing a search on this film and would love for them to find this well-referenced, well-written article. In my mind this piece adds value to the encyclopedia.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:35, 28 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 Rational Software. No evidence of the subject meeting the wikipedia notability guidelines. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rational Business Developer[edit]

Rational Business Developer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Jcarlosmartins (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jcarlosmartins, bad sourcing is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON would you like to try another? ~Kvng (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any Wikipedia acceptable source. It seems like this is a non-notable article. Jcarlosmartins (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No valid reson given for deletion and no response from nom. ~Kvng (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG - there is a total lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. There are literally no sources. An argument that a "valid reson given for deletion" was not provided is not serious in 2020. Bad sourcing is the number one reason we delete articles on Wikipedia. Just to be sure, let's do some online searches: a bunch of how-to manuals, eight articles tangentially about the product, and exactly minus zero articles in newspapers indexed online. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bearian, what do you think about redirecting to Rational Software as an WP:ATD? ~Kvng (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I do not oppose such a AtD. Bearian (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot keep a redirect if there is no referenced content on the page you want to redirect to. --Jcarlosmartins (talk) 19:34, 25 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 no consensus. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FactorDaily[edit]

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

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

Non notable digital media publication that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before shows hits in non notable sources such as this, in primary sources & user generated sources all of which we don’t consider reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The media company has been referenced in over 25 Wikipedia pages, multiple times. Reference sources listed on the page are notable with Wikipedia pages of their own like TechCrunch and the Hindu newspaper. The publication has covered a variety of topics including bringing out the 'Me Too' movement in the Indian technology space. Articles published on the site are often reference in notable international technology news sites like Techmeme that are highly reliable. Logicalriver (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — The editor above is the article creator. Furthermore please do provide us with at least 3 reliable sources that show discusses the organization/media company have been discussed with in-depth in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Yes, I am the creator of the article and I'm new to Wikipedia. You being a senior editor know things better than I do, but I don't think that just being a geography-focused or smaller company discredits a media company from having a Wiki page and hope your decision is not biased because of this factor. As far as your request goes, here are articles and FactorDaily's coverage referenced and discussed in-depth by notable independent sources - Fortune,Reuters, PC-Mag, Quartz, CNBC TV18, WIRED, GQ India and VCCircle.Logicalriver (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify The article contains a lot of peacockery and promo blurb, and many statements are unsupported. If one were to weed out the fluff and add RS citations, this perhaps could be salvaged, but I think the onus is on the creating editor to do that, hence why I'd move this to draft space rather than keep and leave it for others to do the work. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per reliable sources indicated by Logicalriver. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Superastig, I fail to see any sources indicated by Celestina007? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already corrected. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The references are very poor, startup style PR and run-of-the-mill business news that don't prove the organisation is notable. The first references to [[1]] fails WP:ORGIND. The second one is a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS. The third ref is also very poor and doesn't pass WP:V/WP:SIRS. The references provided above, are news stories that perhaps were originated by the news outlet, but don't verify it as being notable, in own right. They are merely stories that originated there and were picked up by other news organisation. Anybody could have originated them. All that has been presented so far, is indicative of a very young new outlet, that hasinsufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:SIRS. If there was detailed reference available that passed WP:NCORP/WP:SIRS, they would have been present, but they're not. It is non-notable at the current time. scope_creep^Talk 17:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The applicable guideline is WP:NCORP and while references should be reliable sources, meeting only that part of the criteria is not enough to establish notability. References must also meet additional criteria including in-depth coverage and Independent Content (facts/opinion/etc generated by the journalist). Not a single reference I can find or that is referenced in the article meets the criteria. Topic fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Referenced in academic articles - I am listing just 3 of the first 4 I checked, with about 100 hits on Google Scholar: Hyper-localizing e-Commerce Strategy: An Emerging Market Perspective, International Journal on Customer Relations, Observer Research Foundation (ORF).--Concertmusic (talk) 16:02, 25 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 no consensus. No agreement on whether the sources satisfy WP:CORP. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

App Academy[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has plenty of citations that establish GNG. For example, a Wall Street Journal article [2], this article by Wired Magazine, [3], and this piece by ABC on Yahoo news [4] all of which have been linked in the article and cover App Academy in depth. The article definitely needs some work and is promotional in tone but not to the level of being deletion worthy and App Academy definitely satisfies GNG. Chess (talk) (please use ((ping|Chess)) on reply) 23:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The Wired article and the Wall Street Journal article currently on the page demonstrate clear notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly? It bears asking seeing as how you appear to know that the appropriate guideline for organizations/corporations is WP:NCORP but yet you always appear to !vote to Keep articles with bland and vague (and false) reasoning while ignoring the NCORP guidelines and requirements. In my opinion, this is bad-faith editing and disruptive behaviour as other editors have then to spend time rebutting any arguments you put forward. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wired and the Wall Street Journal are well-known reliable sources that fact-check their stories. Both articles are entirely about the subject, discussing it directly and in detail. I know that you and I disagree about the definition and importance of NCORP and ORGIND. You are not required to rebut my arguments, if you don't want to. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which specifically requires "Independent Content". Therefore, content provided by the company or where references rely on interviews/quotations from company officers fail the criteria for establishing notability. Of the references linked by Chess above, the WSJ reference is from the blog section and fails as a reliable source. The Wired reference relies entirely on information provided by the company and quotes from the co-founder, fails WP:ORGIND. The Yahoo reference fails for the same reasons. I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ "blogs" aren't actual blogs. They're branded as blogs but have editorial review and are actually opinion pieces by established writers. See WP:NEWSBLOG. It's bizarre that you're describing that because the article relies on an interview it is somehow not independent. Does this mean that music reviews based entirely on the artist's performance are somehow not independent from the artist? Chess (talk) (please use ((ping|Chess)) on reply) 22:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chess I wasn't aware that the WSJ blogs have editorial review, can you point to somewhere that says that? Lets assume it does though for the purposes of trying to ascertain whether the article meets WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. You say that it is "bizarre" that articles that rely on an interview is somehow not independent - please see WP:ORGIND and specifically the definition of "Independent Content". Where in that article is there any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject? Once you remove the parts attributable to the interviewee, what remains is not substantial coverage. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I must have looked at this eight time and couldn't make up my mind, whether to try and improve it or try and delete it. I don't think it notable. There is a lot of these coding academies now and they are entirely generic in nature, as an organisational type. NCORP is the notability standard that is used here: Of the 11 references, 8 are companies own page failing WP:SIRS, one is a blog, the wired one fails WP:ORGIND and one is Yahoo news. It is a Yohoo blog, which doesn't inspire confidence. Lastly comment to @Chess: A large number of references != notability. scope_creep^Talk 13:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Goodman, Douglas (2013-04-27). "App Academy: How a School Tuition Of $12,000 Leads To Annual Salary Of $83,000 in 9 Weeks". Mic. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  2. Borland, Ken (2017-05-11). "This software-school startup doesn't make students pay -- until they score a job". CNN. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  3. Wohlsen, Marcus (2013-03-15). "Tuition at Learn-to-Code Boot Camp Is Free — Until You Get a Job". Wired. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  4. Douglas, Nick (2018-10-22). "Learn Web Development for Free With App Academy". Lifehacker. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow App Academy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as bad-faith editing by presenting routine and WP:MILL coverage as suitable references, when in fact it is disingenuous reasoning that completely ignores WP:NCORP. Lets examine them:

• App Academy: How a School Tuition Of $12,000 Leads To Annual Salary Of $83,000 in 9 Weeks Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance
• [5] "It enables us to train a greater number of folks and it helps us succeed," App Academy CEO Kush Patel told CNNTech. "[It's] a win-win." Fails WP:ORGIND
• [[6]] "The risk to us is students might want to go back to school or start their own business— or simply change their minds," Patel says. "We're actually very confident students can get jobs." Interview with founders. Fails WP:ORPGIND.
• [7] Reads like a press-release with a link in the opening sentence to the site. App Academy founder Kush Patel tells Lifehacker that while Codecademy is a good resource for all sorts of programming Fails WP:ORGIND. Another interview. The four references are entirely unsuitable for establishing notability. They all fail WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 18:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is a recurring problem that Cunard posts links to references that are supposed to meet the criteria for establishing notability but that most of the time, they fail the criteria. I've pointed this out on multiple occasions as it is deliberately misleading, disruptive, and causes other editors to check each link in order to provide a rebuttal. Cunard has been around long enough and commented on enough AfD's by now to know about NCORP's criteria. Instead, based on Cunard's continal lack of any reference to NCORP in his !votes, it appears that Cunard refuses to accept NCORP and chooses instead to use a loose (and incorrect) interpretation of GNG to justify his !votes. As I said, this is disruptive and needs to stop. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The above two comments are unnecessary personalization, bordering if not crossing personal attack territory. Cunard views things differently than you do. That's allowed here. We are here to build an encyclopedia, some people do that by improving the quality of the encyclopedia by removing non-encyclopedic content, and others do that by trying to rescue articles and demonstrating content as being encyclopedic. Presenting sources for consideration is not a disruptive action. You are allowed to disagree with those sources, and the analysis in disagreement thereof is not disruptive either. Building content is hard work, why should deleting content be easy? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Evaluating sources is a part of this process. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:48, 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 .30-03. I have also merged a small bit into the target article, which - aside from the redlink in the infobox - did not previously mention it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.30-01[edit]

.30-01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. There is no WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS addressing the subject directly and in depth. BEFORE showed tertiary sources with mentions and listings, but nothing that demonstrates WP:N.   // Timothy :: talk  04:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to .30-03. I don't know much about ammo, but it appears this is the predecessor to the .30-03 and it is currently listed in that article's infobox. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:13, 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 keep. If the content ultimately belongs elsewhere or should take a different form, that is a content dispute to be resolved on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of monsters in Marvel Comics[edit]

List of monsters in Marvel Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a collection of trivial characters under a topic that has no actual definition. There is no in-universe character trait/race called "monster" that I can see, so it's just an indiscriminate list of trivial characters. TTN (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If the goal is to change the scope of the topic into a topic on a franchise(?) rather than the current indiscriminate list, I'll withdraw this. TTN (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I did not do a deep source check, but I was able to find some coverage from news publications, including real world commentary on the subject:

https://screenrant.com/marvel-monsters-changed-comics-code/

https://www.denofgeek.com/comics/marvels-31-best-monsters/

https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/5-best-marvel-monsters-ever/

https://www.cbr.com/marvel-best-monsters-before-silver-age/

The topic itself clearly isn't WP:OR, and it verifiably had an impact on the Comics Code Authority. My instinct is to convert the article to prose or add a couple of paragraphs about it somewhere else. Darkknight2149 22:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • That being said, the article does need to be altered from its current form. Right now, it's practically asking for passing readers to add random characters based on their own opinions on what a monster is. Darkknight2149 22:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The monsters of the pre-Silver Age were a big deal during that time period and there seems to sources still now. Where do you think Groot and Fin Fang Foom came from? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhenderson777: Would it make more sense to convert the article to prose, and have it discuss the topic of Monsters in Marvel Comics / Marvel Monsters as a whole? I definitely agree with you that the topic has a degree of notability based on the sources:

I think there are ways to make the page more informative and comprehensive to readers than just listing off a bunch of characters, which is essentially a WP:OR attractant right now. Darkknight2149 23:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Let this page stay. As mentioned above, the monsters of the pre-Silver Age were a big deal in comics. Plus, some of the monster characters who had pages on this website were redirected to this article. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments above - noting that there are several WP:RS in the article - per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to prose format: Per my comments above. I think any notable examples of Marvel Monsters would come up naturally in the history text, and having it in its current form is likely to attract original research. I think having it simply list off monsters also robs the topic of its encyclopedic value. Given the role that monsters played in the Comics Code Authority, development of superheroes, and in Marvel's history, there are more informative ways of tackling the topic. Darkknight2149 00:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and make it way better. The history of Marvel "monster comics" is well discussed in books about Marvel comics. But yes, the article as it exists does not really tell that story; it should be comprehensively rewritten. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everyone so far in the AfD has not given a single policy-based reason for keeping the article. The topic may be able to be covered in prose, but that really has no bearing on this since it would require a total rewrite. This article in particular is heavily reminiscient of the D&D monster lists, in that it's all plot and solely primary sourced. If someone wishes to save a local copy of it for help writing the new article so be it, but that doesn't mean it should be kept._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because article content does not determine notability. People are voting "keep" on the basis of the topic having sufficient coverage. People are saying "rewrite in prose form" because the current revision of the article is a mess. "This article is poorly written, poorly sourced trash" in itself isn't a reason for deletion. WP:ATD is a Wikipedia policy and it says upfront: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Every flawed article is not solved through deletion. Darkknight2149 06:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article's title contains "List", and there is no guarantee it will be moved and totally rewritten upon the close of this AfD. People often say an article should be remade and it never happens. I feel the best option is not to keep in the hopes of a future change but delete pending a future resubmission._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep entirely reasonable subject for a list. Artw (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you believe it is a reasonable subject does not really matter, WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:ILIKEIT. What matters is whether it's a suitable subject for a Wikipedia list, AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, it relies on evidence and consensus._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You deletionists are not adhering to WP:JUSTAPOLICY, WP:Not notable, WP:ASSERTN, WP:ITSCRUFT, WP:IGNORINGATD,WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. So we need to stop nitpicking because these AFD’s are a mess of bad arguments from both sides IMO. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List pages pretty much exist to be useful. Artw (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Potentially merge to List of Marvel Comics characters. Seems unreasonable that this exists on its own, unless I'm missing something. Sean Stephens (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rework into prose as suggested. No prejudice against relisting this article for a second nomination for AfD if it doesn't improve within a reasonable amount of time. Haleth (talk) 23:48, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Tagaytay[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Tagaytay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Tagaytay is a city with a population little over 70 000. I know that there is no definite line drawn as to when "List of tallest buildings in ___" become notable or not notable. I would say, however, that wherever we draw that line, this article must fall short of those standards. It fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

• Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
• Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Emporis and a thread in Skyscraper City do not constitute significant coverage.
• I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Tagaytay' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
• No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
• The whole article is currently a violation of WP:NOTMIRROR as it is almost entirely a copy and paste from Emporis.
• The city is not the largest in The Philippines nor is it the capital.
• I really do not believe that a building simply having more than 11 floors makes it notable.

Similar AfDs for reference: List of tallest buildings in Gwalior and List of tallest buildings in Saguenay, Quebec Spiderone 21:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:LISTN based on all of the above. Ajf773 (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nom said it all.   // Timothy :: talk  09:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, WP:SNOW, and my own lax standards. Tagaytay is known insularly as a resort, but not internationally, although my partner and his family own real property in Cavite. Nevertheless, this city is not so big, popular, or well-known to have notable skyscrapers; the biggest is a mere 21 floors. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Lorstaking 04:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a listing of non-notable buildings (with the "tallest" having 21-23 floors) with no Wikilinks. The status of Tagaytay as a famous tourist destination is not a reason to maintain this minimal list. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:GNG.--ERAMnc 11:41, 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 12:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FREIDA Online[edit]

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

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

This database has had problem tags since 2010. There are no third party sources cited, so there is no establishment of notability. This database is part of the American Medical Association and someone proposed a merge to there, but without sources I identify no content to merge. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had proposed the merge previously, but I now support delete per nom. Rogermx (talk) 02:20, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver O'Dea[edit]

Oliver O'Dea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an odd one. For starters, he doesn't look notable. Two, he seems to have died recently, although I could find no obituary beyond a death notice. But weirder: a relative of his has requested his article be deleted, and claims that the article is in part a hoax Ticket:2020111110002678. It doesn't quite meet the letter of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE however, as the subject isn't living, but it certainly seemed enough to open an AfD over. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek <sthin up>Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. There are a handful of sources which seem to support some of the content. And at least a partial claim to some notability. Including this and this. However, it has to be noted that these are not especially reliable sources (an otherwise ROTM website and a reprinted UK tabloid news article). The sources in the article are also somewhat light (an archived webpage and IMDB entry which may or may not relate to the subject). Personally I'm not sure that SIGCOV is met (given that sources are thin on the ground, and those that can be found are somewhat thin in content). Absent something more substantive, I'd err towards deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very clearly a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBOX....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given that the subject does not seem to meet NBOX and having seen the OTRS ticket, I see no reason not to honour what seems to be a reasonable request for deletion by the subject's relative. Best, Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:34, 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. Consensus is to delete, sole keep vote provides no sources to support claim of gng and therefore is nothing in the article to indicate GNG. A redirect would probably not be appropriate given there is no mention of her in her former clubs article and no indication of a valid article other than that. Fenix down (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leia Smith[edit]

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

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

I removed the PROD as per procedure as Smith was part of an AfD before and was kept. A WP:BEFORE search is not revealing much about her, though, and the coverage that I can find is quite trivial [8] [9] [10]. I would have to agree with User:Geschichte's reasons for deletion. Spiderone 20:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 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) 01:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 20:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect No solid reason has been given to justify the deletion of this content while valid alternatives exist. If she is not worthy of a standalone article this can be redirected somewhere. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't generally redirect non-notable footballers anywhere. I suppose it could be redirected to Newcastle Jets but it makes little sense as that article has no info about Smith. Spiderone 20:21, 23 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 17:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Barbara Gordon[edit]

Alternative versions of Barbara Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A non-notable WP:CONTENTFORK from Barbara Gordon and Barbara Gordon in other media. If an article is getting too long, the answer is to summarize and clean-up, instead of creating endless article splits, as per WP:WAF. The reliable third party sources do not support this as three separate topics, and this does not independently meet the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The topic fails to establish notability to meet WP:GNG. Per WP:WAF, the main article should summarize excessive in-universe content. There is no justification in splitting this, and I feel a merge is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: agree with nom, WP:CONTENTFORK from Barbara Gordon and Barbara Gordon in other media that does not meet guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  13:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:CONTENTFORK without any sources. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Barbara Gordon. Referenced parts may be merged, no need for a stand-lone article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK that does not meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. Already covered in the first article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:51, 23 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 List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor The Mighty Boosh characters[edit]

List of minor The Mighty Boosh characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This list is completely unsourced or cited to primary sources, and cannot meet the WP:GNG. Combining random non-notable minor characters into a singular list gives you a non-notable list. There is already a List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters, and this WP:CONTENTFORK does not meet our encyclopedic standards. Jontesta (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge with List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters - Nomination fails to justify deletion. "This list is completely unsourced or cited to primary sources" is a mischaracterisation of WP:GNG. Per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN, the quality of sources in the article do not determine notability. "Combining random non-notable minor characters into a singular list gives you a non-notable list" is also a direct misunderstanding of notability. Plenty of minor characters receive coverage and plenty of major characters have no coverage (minor character =/= trivia). And per WP:LISTN, the topic for a list can be independently notable while its individual components are not. With that in mind, "WP:CONTENTFORK does not meet our encyclopedic standards" needs to be better substantiated. Darkknight2149 00:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- This is badly sourced, referenced almost entirely to the show itself, and a quick spot check of a few random entries convinces me that that there is nothing better out there. I agree with the nominator that this does not meet our notbaility requirements. As for a merge, I looked at List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters and it too is a lot of badly sourced fancruft that would not be improved by putting more of it in. Reyk _YO! 10:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge referenced content with List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters then rename it to the Lists of The Mighty Boosh characters (currently a redirect for those two). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete - Offshoots of characters labelled minor are generally too minor to even mention. This cannot stand as its own topic, but maybe some are worth covering in the main list? TTN (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete as there are no sources, despite claims otherwise. Cannot meet WP:GNG otherwise. No objection to a selective merge should this end with a redirect. Striving for consensus and WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge referenced content to List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters per Piotrus.   // Timothy :: talk  19:29, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in the Revolution at Sea Saga[edit]

Minor characters in the Revolution at Sea Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This list is completely unsourced or cited to primary sources, and cannot meet the WP:GNG. Combining random non-notable minor characters into a singular list gives you a non-notable list. None of these characters meet the WP:GNG separately or as a compilation, with the exception of articles about historic figures that don't help establish notability of this fiction. Jontesta (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This non-sourced list does not meet the WP:GNG. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not a single reference. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG/WP:NLIST _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 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) 20:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional revolutions and coups[edit]

List of fictional revolutions and coups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a list of random examples with only unsourced information or primary information. The few sources are only discussing the concept in passing, or recapping WP:PLOT information, which is insufficient to meet WP:NOT. Maybe an article about the overall concept of revolutionary fiction could be notable, but "list of incidents" is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE topic that fundamentally cannot meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG, due to it being a ubiquitous and vaguely defined plot device (list includes all kinds of military and political actions), and due to a lack of sources describing this concept in direct detail. Jontesta (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Entirely WP:OR. WP:TNT may also definitely apply here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too broad. There are way too many examples to make a meaningful list. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is not a single source being used in this article. Regardless on whether or not the concept of fictional revolutions in general could potentially be notable, this list is completely made up of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and should not be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The single source used in this 60k article appears to be a blog, so basically all the content here appears to be WP:OR. Even if sources can be found discussing this concept as a group to satisfy WP:LISTN I think what is currently here is a good candidate for WP:TNT. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely WP:OR. Ajf773 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced, indiscriminate list of fictional events, not unlike the many other "List of fictional X" articles we've deleted over the years. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this list is indiscriminate, it even includes some corporate actions that would never meet any standard definition of inclusion even if the words are occasionally used by analogy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This list has existed since 16 July 2005.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of fictional events. Also, it is incomplete (under his eye). 122.60.173.107 (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: With prejudice. Undiscriminating collection of trivia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure trivia with OR issues (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 23 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 New Gods. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Gods[edit]

List of New Gods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is a series of unverifiable, unsourced or primary sourced plot details, violating both the WP:GNG and WP:NOT#PLOT. Most of the notable characters in this universe already have articles, along with the main New Gods article. Going beyond that with a separate topic is untenable because there are not enough reliable independent sources to create an independent article of this scope. Jontesta (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with New Gods or Move to List of New Gods characters - I was tempted to vote "Keep" because of how ridiculously notable the New Gods (and their pantheon) are, even on the simplest of WP:BEFORE tests. But on second thought, there's no reason a less wordy version of this list can't be covered on the main page. However, if we move the page, it will need to be edited, expanded, and rewritten because of the poor writing. Darkknight2149 20:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is little to merge here. Only three names in the entire list are sourced, the rest do not even have primary sources. Dimadick (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - The New Gods are definitely notable, and as Darkknight2149 said, a quick search brings up plenty of sources. That said, the list needs to be massively cleaned up. This should really be limited to those characters that either are blue linked to their own articles, or have at least one non-primary source supporting the information, which the vast majority of the characters here do not. Additionally, all of the characters listed here who are not New Gods (the various human characters, the Old Gods, etc) should also be removed. At that point, I feel that the remainder of this list would be short enough that it would make sense to Merge it to the main New Gods article as suggested. Rorshacma (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Dimadick. There is not much to merge. I really don't see almost any of these list members surviving an AfD themselves. Similar to the D&D monsters lists, we don't have to wait for the non-notable list entries to go before removing the non-notable list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect - Either solution is fine, but it seems to make more sense just to start a new list of bluelinks than merge this mess of a list with its circular redirect and redirects to nowhere. TTN (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as these characters are already covered in their own article, and there is no additional content to make this independently notable as stated in the WP:GNG. I would accept some kind of section in the main article linking to the notable characters, for navigation purposes, but this is already covered in the template. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move to List of New Gods characters per the suggestion of @Darkknight2149:. Some of the New Gods characters currently redirect there and we have to have them redirect somewhere on this website. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Excuse my frankness, but can anyone here cite an actual policy-based reason for outright deletion? As both myself and Rorshacma have pointed out, even the simplest of WP:BEFORE tests will bring up coverage pertaining to New Gods characters (which in itself is an influential comic book property). Aside from that, there is a "But the article is not well sourced" vote, a vote citing that vote, and a couple of others that seem tentatively in favour of a redirect/merge, but maybe not really (?). Darkknight2149 19:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't debate that the New Gods are notable, but this is just pure plotcruft and lists every minor character. I don't think that the New Gods need a separate article to discuss their notable members, but either way, this is not that article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with New Gods. Dream Focus 22:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obscure topic which does not meet the WP:GNG. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read: WP:IDONTKNOWIT. The topic isn't obscure at all and it passes WP:GNG given the existence of coverage. Darkknight2149 22:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with New Gods. It does seem like an indiscriminate directory list, with even the Old Gods being mentioned. Haleth (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought about redirecting this to New Gods but why bother? The title is unlikely to be search for, and this seems to fail WP:GNG/WP:NLIST otherwise. Nothing to merge, as this is almost totally unreferenced, too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the prominence that the New Gods have in both comic book history and in the DC Universe, and the demonstrable existence of heavy coverage, List of New Gods is a likely search term. Ignorance on the topic is not the same thing as cruft. Darkknight2149 22:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to New Gods in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE; the underlying topic is indisputably notable, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:15, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Abbotsford, British Columbia[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Abbotsford, British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article opens with "None of Abbotsford's tallest buildings are among the tallest in Canada" which says it all really. I know that there is no definite line drawn as to when "List of tallest buildings in ___" become notable or not notable. I would say, however, that wherever we draw that line, this article must fall short of those standards. It fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

• Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
• Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscraperpage and Emporis do not constitute significant coverage.
• I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Abbotsford' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
• No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
• The whole article is currently a violation of WP:NOTMIRROR as it is almost entirely a copy and paste from Skyscraperpage.
• The city is not the largest in British Columbia nor is it the capital.
• I really do not believe that a building being taller than 50m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in Vancouver and Montreal so why are we doing it here?

Similar AfDs for reference: List of tallest buildings in Thunder Bay and List of tallest buildings in Saguenay, Quebec Spiderone 19:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This information is non-notable trivia.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Having taller buildings than Chilliwack, Richmond and White Rock is not exactly a notable distinction. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom, the list fails WP:LISTN. There aren't reliable sources, Abbotsford isn't a major city, and none of the buildings are actually very tall. I doubt anyone is gonna build a skyscraper in Abbotsford but if at some point in the future they build more than one, maybe this page would be warranted. Samsmachado (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nom said everything that needs to be said.   // Timothy :: talk  09:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tall buildings in Abbotsford has been mentioned as a group by Skyscraper Page. SO IT MEETS WP:LISTN and should bot be deleted. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that user submitted content? Are there any other sources discussing the tall buildings of Abbotsford? Spiderone 20:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per mom, past outcomes, and my own low standards. Not a single building is over 26 stories, and none are notable themselves, thus violating WP:LIST. It is well-established that mirroring a single source violates one of our core rules: we report but do not create original research. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedence that's becoming quite ample. Geschichte (talk) 20:37, 23 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 19:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo Mootzka[edit]

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

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

I am trully cautious, but this might be copyvio according to this and this The Banner talk 19:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the Subject is notable, but if someone could have a word with the creator about copyright, that would be great. Vexations (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are several cite errors in the article. I would say delete unless they were fixed, in which case weak keep. ~Cupper (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Meets WP:NARTIST: the article itself claims he is in a half dozen museum collections. I have already confirmed one collection, and the others seem likely. The article is by a student editor.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've confirmed three collections (example). The page is a great addition to Wikipedia. It needs some cleanup, but the notability is very clear.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I did not nominate because of notability but because op copyright concerns. At the time of nominating it was 58% copyvio. The Banner talk 20:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, I don't believe AfD is the right venue for copyright concerns. That would either be CSD, or simply edit out the offending portions and request a revdel. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio has been fixed. I think the history should be left for a few days, as this is a class project, and perhaps the teacher would like to see that copyvio.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just saw this note. I'll refrain from working on it so the student editor can engage. (I got excited learning about this artist.) Netherzone (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, confirmed the Gilcrease Museum and the Heard Museum. Passes WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly meets notability requirements per WP:NARTIST by way of museum collections mentioned above by ThatMontrealIP and onel5969. Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As my concern was copyvio only: request speedy close as keep. The Banner talk 21:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, I removed the dups the dup detector identified. For the closer's edification: do you think a ((copyvio-revdel)) would be warranted here?

Cupper52, this AfD could be closed speedily except for your conditional delete !vote (which I don't believe discloses a genuine WP:DELREASON—citation errors are not grounds for deletion). Would you consider striking your delete? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also it was created by a student editor. ~Cupper (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know it is not prohibited to student-editors - or any other type of editor - to write articles. So please, with draw your delete vote and lets get this over with. The Banner talk 18:03, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Palma Bellver[edit]

Hotel Palma Bellver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD and BEFORE showed nothing that meets RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article provides no indication of notability. There is routine, mill, coverage, advertising, promos.   // Timothy :: talk  18:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, random hotel, does not meet GNG. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Based on ratings, it appears to be nice, but there's too little coverage. There's no coverage in major tour guides. I feel meh so am wiling to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Best Western Park[edit]

Hotel Best Western Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD and BEFORE showed nothing that meets RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.   // Timothy :: talk  18:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article title seems to be misspelled, as it was called Hotel Best Western Parc, and it has since been renamed Ramada by Wyndham Bucharest Parc. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The hotel does not meet the WP:GNG. 122.60.173.107 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL. Now, at 13 floors, it is not by anyone's definition of notably tall. There's no indication it's historic. It belongs to a chain of franchised hotels that are, to be blunt, not picky. COI: I used to work for the lawyer who represented a Best Western when I clerked for her. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication of historic significance Spiderone 10:31, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Paul Huissoon[edit]

Jan Paul Huissoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Possible vanity. Jdcooper (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Citations on Scholar are pretty weak for what I assume is a high-citation field, and no other WP:NPROF criterion besides C1 seems relevant. Certainly does not pass WP:BASIC. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROF. This person is a "professor of knowledge". Very funny indeed. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - perhaps WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He publishes as "Jan P. Huissoon" so the search above that spells out his middle name is not accurate. But even correcting for that, I didn't find enough citations to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, and there doesn't seem to be any other claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 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. There is a consensus that he fails WP:NPOL, and no attempt has been made to identify which specific sources qualify him to pass WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Goldberg (Illinois)[edit]

Richard Goldberg (Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This subject appears to fall short of notability. He was rather nebulously an "advisor", and other than that his article appears to be a string of associations with actually notable people (e.g., he "works closely with" a U.S. Special Representative, and was an advisor or staffer to various politicians). These placements are not sufficient to garner notability, which is not WP:INHERITED from employers or advisees. BD2412 T 18:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 18:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, which AFAICS is the only relevant SNG; also fails WP:BASIC. AleatoryPonderings (???) / (!!!) 22:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, As the Director for Countering Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction at White House’s National Security Council, Richard Goldberg is definitely independently notable. He satisfies WP:INHERITED, WP:NPOL, ... I will add the reliable sources to the article. AbDaryaee (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AbDaryaee: How can WP:INHERITED be satisfied? It is an essay explaining that notability cannot be inherited. Besides, WP:NPOL is not satisfied as Goldberg has never held public office. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He WP:INHERITED his notability. Needs to delete. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, With respect to all, I believe Mr. Goldberg is considered notable for his position in the White house. AbDaryaee (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is basically repeating what you have already said above. However, having a position in the White House does not automatically confer notability on an individual. The subject in this case was not subject to Senate confirmation, nor were they in a position directly appointed by the President, and solely reporting to the President. BD2412 T 17:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The executive office of the president of the United States has 4000 employees. A huge number of them have some titles, and lots of them rotate a lot. Clearly they are not all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable political functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL - staff in the Trump WH come and go so often, and they have so little authority to do anything, that Rachel Maddow has a wall of their names in tiny print, and they are the object of ridicule on Twitter and late night shows. We are not a LinkedIn for desperate WH staff who know they are about to be fired by tweet. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we are not "linkedin" for political types which is how it reads now, and not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- 9 refs for a small article. Dswitz10734 (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I see what appear to be at least 5 apparently-RS in the citations, which should make it clear that WP:GNG is satisfied. WP:NPOL is therefore irrelevant. WP:INHERITED seems to be being invoked in the sense of "they're only notable because X" - which is an argument to avoid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing reliable sources in the citations doesn't mean that those sources discuss the subject in depth. Which sources here are both reliable and provide substantial coverage of the subject? BD2412 T 16:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]