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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza Hotel, College Station[edit]

Plaza Hotel, College Station (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 does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings.   // Timothy :: talk  23:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Run-of-the mill hotel, lacking any real notability beyond the local level.TH1980 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication of historic significance Spiderone 10:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This probably almost meets WP:GNG already, but I can't quite tell: a couple of the KBTX links are broken, I can't access The Eagle since that website is geoblocked. However, this was the first major hotel capable of handling conventions built in College Station, and while the archives I have access to don't cover the construction of the 17-storey high rise, the hotel received significant coverage during its construction: [1] [2] [3], noting how the building alone was the reason for a spike in building permit revenue [4] along with coverage of its sale out of bankruptcy court: [5] And its construction was even important enough to be blurbed about far away from College Station: [6]. That's just the construction alone, an implosion tends to generate GNG-calibre coverage as well and so I think this is an easy pass. SportingFlyer T·C 18:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, TH1980, and WP:MILL. This was a 17-story chain hotel in a college town. Coverage was local. How is that notable in any way? Bearian (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, let's see - the building passes WP:GNG, was the first hotel in town which allowed the town to start hosting conferences, it was the tallest structure in town that wasn't a radio tower (according to Emporis) and it was imploded, which generated a bit of news coverage. I know everyone's saying WP:MILL here, but just being locally notable isn't a reason for deletion - I've finished a couple articles on hotels recently where the only major coverage was local, but the buildings are still important enough to warrant an article. I think this hotel also clearly qualifies - I think everyone is assuming that it's some no-name branded hotel by the side of the road, but it's not. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by SportingFlyer. There is enough material about the hotel and building's history to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found the article and topic interesting and well-supported by sources. I am with SportingFlyer on enough notability, and simply think the article adds value to the encyclopedia.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:10, 30 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. Missvain (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cine Capri[edit]

Cine Capri (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 does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. It makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. WP:BEFORE revealed normal WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL mentions/promos/ads, and directory style listings.   // Timothy :: talk  23:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  23:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  23:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep This is a very well know landmark in Phoenix and covered in dozens of articles. A quarter-million people signed a petition to save it from demolition. The article needs better referencing. MB 03:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like with Los Arcos, the problem here is lack of sourcing. There is also apparently a story from 1997 in Preservation magazine on the demolition; it is, like Los Arcos, going to clobber the GNG. Next time you see an article on a Phoenix-area topic, call on me or MB, because we have the Newspapers.com access to fix this sort of stuff. Here's just a taste: [7], [8], [9][10], [11] Raymie (t • c) 07:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes WP:NBUILD. Just needs to be properly referenced. SportingFlyer T·C 17:28, 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. If there is anything salvageable, let me know and I'll pull it from the article for you for merging. Missvain (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Bel Fisher[edit]

Gran Bel Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Released two albums for Hollywood Records, but one was only an EP. Appearead on a Greys Anatomy compliation but was only one of several acts.

Sources are all WP:PRIMARY. Searching back issues of Billboard along with newspapers.com yielded only passing mentions at best. Best I could find was one review from AllMusic. His content did not chart anywhere. The only two hits on Billboard.com are name-drops of him in the context of other artists or labels.

It was previously stated that he is a former member of the unquestionably notable Marshall Dyllon, but I'm having a hard time corroborating this. The claim seems to trace back to a long-defunct songwriter/publisher website added as a source to the Marshall Dyllon page ages ago, which doesn't even mention Marshall Dyllon at all. The insert in Marshall Dyllon's debut album, as transcribed on a long-abandoned Angelfire fan page, does claim that Jesse Littleton is from Sabina, Ohio, while AllMusic does give GBF's real name as "Jesse Littleton" and claim that he is from Sabina, Ohio. However, I'm not sure if a flyer issued as a bonus inside of a CD is a reliable source, especially when the only trace of it is the above transcription. I have found no sources whatsoever that have both "Marshall Dyllon" and "Gran Bel Fisher" in them, and you'd think that if he had been in another band, no matter how briefly, that at least one publicist would have made note of this. For this reason, I don't think that a merge/redirect to Marshall Dyllon would be warranted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gran Bel Fisher but redirect or selectively merge Jesse Littleton to Marshall Dyllon. Gran Bel Fisher seems to have been more of a band rather than another name for Jesse Littleton, but I couldn't find good evidence for notability for either. However, Jesse Littleton is listed as a member of the defunct Marshall Dyllon and is listed as such in liner notes for their She Ain't Gonna Cry and Enjoy The Ride releases. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete According to strong point by norm. Lord Grandwell (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Marshall Dyllon as per Hobbes Goodyear. A Solo Projects section could fit the relevant info very nicely, and will keep the good encyclopedic information.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Concertmusic: There's still no absolute proof that this is the same Jesse Littleton, though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Facebook seems to make the case that they are one and the same - see the Youtube post.--Concertmusic (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Facebook is not a RS, especially not for a BLP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I do realize that - I interpreted your comment as wanting evidence of any sort that the two names refer to the same person.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehouse.org[edit]

Whitehouse.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Run-of-the-WP:MILL comedy site which got some sparse coverage from notable media sources. At best, this is a case of WP:1E, with that one event being the conflict with Cheney's office. Outside of this one event, every last reference is either from the site itself (a primary source if there ever was one), or non-notable sources that, in some cases, would provide a "reference" for any website (like WHOIS). HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 21:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No view on the notability of the web site, but WP:1E has no application here. 1E applies to "individuals" notable for a single event. This AfD concerns a web site (not an individual) ... and one that has been operating for more than 20 years. The notability of the web site should be assessed under WP:GNG and perhaps also WP:WEBCRIT. Cbl62 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cbl62, you have a good point. However, I fail to see how most of the coverage from mainstream media sources passes WP:WEBCRIT; I would argue that the only three references from reliable sources that count as vaguely notable are the first two New York Times ones and the Salon one, all of which are relatively brief and could be argued to not constitute significant coverage on their own; the second New York Times reference is about a play based on the website and makes only brief (about two paragraphs) reference to the site itself. The CNN reference is both mildly questionable in its status as a secondary source (it's an interview with the site's owner during an episode of a talk show, which I would consider to be a questionably independent source) and highly questionable in its notability (said talk show, while notable enough for its own page, is so obscure it doesn't even show up in the CNN Original Programming template), and the Washington Post reference is a dead link. I cannot find much else coverage of the site in the Find sources for Google News. Therefore, I would argue that it does not pass WP:WEBCRIT, and rather or not it passes WP:GNG is debatable. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 02:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be based on 3rd party sources, and for a long running website if there is really only one event that ever got quality coverage, we should not have an article on the website. The event itself does not seem to rise to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. Barely notable and only sometimes funny. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Broderick, James F.; Miller, Darren W. (2007). "Chapter 97: WhiteHouse.org". Consider the Source: A Critical Guide to 100 Prominent News and Information Sites on the Web. Medford, New Jersey: Information Today. pp. 419–422. ISBN 978-0-910965-77-4. Retrieved 2020-11-29.

     The book provides five pages of coverage about Whitehouse.org. The book notes in the "Overview" section of the chapter:

     WhiteHouse.org is a satirical site—an acid-tongued spin on President George W. Bush and his administration. When you realize your mistake, you may be tempted to exit the page and head to the real White House Web site (www.whitehouse.gov). But if you flee, you'll be missing one of the best examples of biting, incisive satire on the Web.

     As with all effective satire, Whitehouse.org is impolite, perhaps even a tough vulgar. Fans of the Republican administration will likely be put off by the harsh tenor of much of the site's "news" articles. But if you believe that the purpose of the popular press is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable (the creed of many professional journalists), you'll realize how firmly this site is rooted in the American tradition of muckraking.

  2. Ristow, Richard (September–October 2004). "Lampooning the Buffoon: fun on the internet at W's expense". Clamor. p. 21. Retrieved 2020-11-29.

     The article notes:

     Shortly after Bush was "appointed" by the Supreme Court, John Wooden thought Bush's new White House would be "super-meaty project." All he needed was a name, and the whitehouse.org web domain just happened to be free.

     Wooden's parody is a mirror distortion of the real White House's web site. Whitehouse.org is complete with clickable links to things like the Department of Faith, Homeland Security, and Fraternal Affairs. ... Back at Whitehouse.org, the main page also offers Onionesque press releases, including: "President's Armed Forces Radio Address to America's Troops on the Glorious Occasion of their Retroactive Induction into Eternal Martial Slavery" ...

  3. Weiser, Benjamin (2003-03-06). "Web Site Hears From Cheney After Parody Involving Wife". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-11-29. Retrieved 2020-11-29.

     The article notes:

     The site (www.whitehouse.org) lampoons senior members of the administration, from the president on down. The Bush Administration, it says on one page. Courage. Passion. Faith. Petroleum. Xenophobia.

     The site is meant to be a parody of the actual White House Web site (www.whitehouse.gov), Mr. Wooden said.

     Mr. Wooden, of Brooklyn, said he has operated the site since 2001, and no one in the Bush administration had complained before the letter from Mr. Cheney's counsel, David S. Addington.

  4. This website^Archive from the website's creator provides a list of media quotes about the website:
     1. “Hilarious” – The New York Times
     2. “In” – Vanity Fair
     3. “Spot on” – BBC
     4. “Hysterical… Searing political parody” – CNN
     5. “Brilliantly ham-fisted” – TIME
     6. “Scathing… Wickedly funny” – Detroit Metro Times
     7. “Offensive, irreverent… bitingly funny.” – Orlando Sentinel
     8. “The jury is out on Wooden’s ability to make anyone laugh.” – New York Post
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Whitehouse.org to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes GNG and prong 1 of WEBCRIT per sourcing proffered by Cunard. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Really good research and documentation by Cunard above makes a convincing case to me.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Cunard's findings, I think this passes GNG. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Outpost (video game)[edit]

The Last Outpost (video game) (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 only sources listed have been dead for years, and I can't find anything else about this game online (except for exact copies of this very article.) Most Horizontal Primate (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing in the WP:VG/SE. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A never-released game from a non-notable, now defunct company. Rorshacma (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can find no coverage of this game pretty much anywhere, let alone in any WP:RS. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - complete lack of existence of secondary sources Spiderone 22:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article lacks significant coverage from reliable sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:26, 26 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. Missvain (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Roes[edit]

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

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

Certainly accomplished, but not enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Searches did not turn up enough to indicate he passes WP:NAUTHOR, either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability questions. I'm open to feedback from other editors on the notability. One of this subject's peers -- noted in the Wiki as a wiki link -- has fewer citations but a solid page which was considering in publishing this subject's page as they are related. I agree WP:NSCHOLAR and WP:NAUTHOR are not appropriate, but I feel WP:GNG standard is met with the handful of citations on the subject. Happy to work with other editors to improve the article accordingly.10Sany1? (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is so heavily promotional, so clearly based on personally-provided materials (e.g. "Certificate of Recognition from New York State"), and so unrelated to its creator's other edits as to make me strongly suspect undisclosed paid editing. Regardless of whether the subject is notable (and he may be, as a book author at least), WP:TNT or even possibly WP:CSD#G11 applies. More attention to possibly-promotional editing is warranted at a couple of articles that are otherwise unrelated: Caroline Casagrande and Jill Kelley (where the same editor was reverted twice by User:C.Fred and User:Fat Irish Guy). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologize User:David_Eppstein if you are misunderstanding my edits. I closely follow many topics, including politics, history among other things. I also watch pages I edit as some editors seem to have personal issues with political figures especially, and violatae WP:BLP rules entirely.

Curious User:David_Eppstein help me understand what you feel is promotional in this article? Happy to consider your thoughts. 10Sany1? (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

improved article removed info unrelated to subject as author or addiction specialist. Also pointing out William Richard Miller page defines a peer of subject, an article with fewer resources, books and citations. WP:AUTHOR should be reconsidered here.10Sany1? (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still heavily promotional. If you are looking for tips for improvement, my first would be: disclose your conflicts of interest, as Wikipedia requires you to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not asking you how to improve the article, I was asking you to declare in what way you feel it's promotional, as it is not promoting anything. Can you explain why specifically you are saying this is promotional? There is no conflict of interest here, not sure why you immediately assume so? Not exactly assuming good faith.10Sany1? (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. The article has been improved with additional secondary sources that appear to be reliable. In my mind, enough has been done to make this article worth keeping.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:TNT this mostly primary-sourced article. There might be a marginal case for WP:NAUTHOR, but I haven't seen anyone make it. I don't see any case in sight for WP:NPROF, nor significant coverage in independent sources for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this is an inflated spammy paid for biog that doesn't have any basis in any of our notability criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• comment There are several pages of people in similar field, with seemingly less support of WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR or any other special category of notability, yet those pages are acceptable.:

• Insoo Kim Berg
• David D. Burns
• Stephen_Rollnick

10SFan (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Army Reserve Units (2020)[edit]

List of British Army Reserve Units (2020) (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 fails WP:GNG, WP:SNG and WP:ARTN and why do we need a list of units? Totally unreferenced and created by a blocked user BlueD954 (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete largely unsourced and no sign of notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It needs to be better sourced and renamed (removing the "2020"), but it is a perfectly valid article as a list of current Army Reserve units. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Keep for what? You made no effort to address the issues. BlueD954 (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You ask why we are keeping an encyclopaedic list on an encyclopaedia? See WP:NNC. Yes, it needs better sourcing, but claiming that the structure of the British Army does not meet WP:GNG is ludicrous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp and WP:NNC. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, WP:NNC is not an argument to keep a list, it is an argument to keep entries within a list. Please stop repeating this as if it has any bearing on these AfDs. Fram (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See why this PROD was deleted. BlueD954 (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had I spotted it in time I would have deprodded that too. And I've now restored it. But it's not in the slightest relevant to an AfD in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no independent sourcing, lacks notability. Fram (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as I have repeatedly shown below, these units are attributed in multiple, independent, reliable sources. AfD is not cleanup. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has been repeatedly explained to you, you need sources for the list topic, not for individual entries, to show that the list is about a notable topic. And as has been repeatedly said, you need to provide better sources; the first one you add is for the Honourable Artillery Company, where you start with this, which is their homepage. Nope, not independent at all, obviously. So why bother listing it, if not for reference padding, for showing "look how many references there are"? I'm not going to wade through that list of references if this is what you present (second source; [12] an army website, again not independent; then don't bother including it here.) None of the other HAC sources do anything at all to make "list of British Army Reserve Units (2020)" a notable subject. The sources in your next bullet point aren't any better, something like this is not giving any notability to this list, nor even to the RMRE. You include LinkedIn, for crying out loud. It's a laundry list of everything you could find, no matter if it was relevant, reliable, independent, ... No thanks, don't bother, it's desperate instead of convincing. Fram (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your feelings on this issue are leading you to make incorrect statements. The subject of this list is 2020; this means that citing all the independent sources - yes, including LinkedIn, that shows it's current this year - validate that the units exist - though you incorrectly say they're passing mentions, some are specifically on the units concerned. The point is that all the association and other sources prove the units existed in the last twelve or so months (and the Army sites back that up, which is why I also noted their existence). That was my objective. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • • I don't think anyone doubted there existence, which isn't the reason this one is up for deletion or why I voted "delete". The lack of notability is not solved by primary sources, Linkedin, or passing mentions. Feel free to repost a heavily pruned list of sources which actually do show notability, as the ones I checked from yor list fell way short of that mark. Fram (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would prefer not to see a proliferation of orbats. Dormskirk (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not keen on the idea of having lists of military units with arbitrary dates, but this is a list of current units, which has obvious encyclopedic and navigational value. It's not "Totally unreferenced", and even if it was that wouldn't be much of a reason to delete it given that sources will be easily available. The fact that it was created by a blocked user doesn't mean it should be deleted unless it has no significant contributions from other people. I should point out that WP:LISTN says Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability, so that isn't necessarily a valid argument either. Hut 8.5 18:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Is there a reason that Units of the British Army, that includes reserves, couldn't be updated? Otr500 (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, so there is no need for this page. Mztourist (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is far more detailed than that one so what you're suggesting is a merge rather than deletion. The destination article is getting rather long so it may still be a good idea to have a separate article. Hut 8.5 09:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Mztourist. Leahjstaples1234 (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) — Leahjstaples1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment - all the entries on this list meet the threshold of multiple, independent, and reliable sources being available, and thus they meet the WP:GNG (as also per Necrothesp). Buckshot06 (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they do not.BlueD954 (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I truly think your statement is incorrect. Let's take a sample unit, the Honourable Artillery Company. It's a semi-autonomous, not quite part of the British Army given its history (chartered in 1587), so it has a completely current separate website, at https://hac.org.uk/. Then it has the Army site at https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/6th-united-kingdom-division/1st-intelligence-surveillance-and-reconnaissance-brigade/honourable-artillery-company/. Then for example mention; joins AEV Members of the Honourable Artillery Company fire a 62-round royal gun salute from outside the Tower of London to mark Queen Elizabeth II's 68th anniversary of accession to the throne in London https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2020/03/whisky-live-london-postponed-due-to-coronavirus/
    • Just in case the point needs to be made at the article, I will add all those references there. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's take another unit, say the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers (Militia). They too have a website separate from the Army site, at https://rmonrem.com/. Also Remembrance Day marathon raises funds for veteran's mental health charity; I'm a Celebrity: Ruined Gwent castles where ITV show could take place; Duke and Duchess of Gloucester to visit Jersey for Liberation 75 celebrations.
    • This was literally a five-minute scribble through the instantly available British local news sites. Apart from the Army and/or unit separate website if it has one, there's lots and lots of occasions when a Army Reserve unit is mentioned for all kinds of reasons. Their existence is verifiable, without even going to the hardcopy which might be available to UK residents. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also just added several news stories for 7th Battalion, The Rifles, which can be seen at the article, as further evidence that, notwithstanding any hardcopy sources, these units are mentioned in local news relatively frequently, and thus completely verifiable. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's give another example, 154 (Scottish) Regiment RLC, Royal Logistic Corps. It has an Army current site at [13]; 154 Regiment Facebook; and Twitter, semi-independent hosted on social media; then the RLC Association, the corps 'trade union'; students in UK serving with it on LinkedIn; a current transport directions reference; 221 Squadron of the regiment in a business directory; and then, after that, the local news stories: Forces.net Exercise Mudmaster; Soldier raises thousands for charity (Greenock Telegraph); Coronavirus: Leuchars soldiers on standby to help with Covid-19 response as Fife field hospital rumours quashed.
    • I will add these links to the 154 Regiment entry.
    • Regarding 207 (Manchester) Field Hospital RAMC, there's the official Army site; Newsletter; semi-independent reserve Recruiting Facebook page; and Twitter feed; Govserv.org; Armed forces nurse celebrated for efforts on coronavirus frontline (Bury Times); Manchester Will Commemorate The Fallen At The City’s Annual Remembrance Sunday Service; Liverpool City Region COVID19 Updates... and Important Emergency Notices ... Buckshot06 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • To claim that these units are not covered in independent, multiple, and reliable sources is simply bordering on silliness. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • To call me silly? Go away.BlueD954 (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this appears to be exactly what I would look for in a list. Great wikilinking to other articles I may be interested in, and as a list, I would expect to find the supporting sources in maybe just 1 or 2 places - which is certainly the case here. Notability certainly isn't a factor for me on a list of this nature and size.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In agreement with Concertmusic and Buckshot06. Subject is notable, entries in the list are notable, list is useful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Some of the Keep rationales have been rebutted here, especially on the quality of the sources, and one of them even suggests that the best plan would be to return the article to Draft for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Australia[edit]

Pro Wrestling Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contest speedy for gregarious and unsourced reasons that smack of original research and fan bias. Previously redirected as Pro Wrestling Alliance Australia with the redirect later deleted as the target was redirected as well. Makes no claim in the article to notability and relies too heavily on it's own website, Cage Match and Wrestling Data. Therefore is not notable and is certainly not the "biggest wrestling company in Sydney" judging by the lack of sources that confirm the contrary Addicted4517 (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Honest question, do you know anything about professional wrestling? and are you Australian?.If the answer is no to both maybe you should stop trying to interfere on professional wrestling pages. However if you think the PWA article should be deleted then I would propose you delete any article in relation to Australian independent Professional Wrestling as none of them are notable. The list of professional wrestling organisations in Australia article features promotions who do not run shows nor are as notable as PWA. So my recommendation would be to remove that article for not being notable as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.101.171.34 (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes and the remainder of this comment is entirely inappropriate as there is no understanding of policy, in particular about the difference between articles and lists like the list of professional wrestling organisations in Australia. Your original research re PWA's notability is against WP policy. If you believe PWA is notable you must locate sources to prove this, and as I have already looked and there are not there would be no point. This is not the case for Riot City Wrestling as an example. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even if we have articles for promotions that are less notable than this article that would be a case for deleting them not keeping this one.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most of the sources are cagematch or wrestlingdata, which don't prove notability. The other ones just mention the promotion because other promotion went to australia (progress or GFW). I don't see enough sources to prove notability. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hi, looking other deletion proposals around here, I think https://www.kotaku.com.au/2020/02/australias-wrestling-scene-is-creating-world-class-stars/ and https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/how-australian-grapplers-are-making-wrestling-cool-again-20190219-p50ypw.html can suffice for the so called WP:GNG. They are more than passing mentions. smaller mentions are https://www.supanova.com.au/handy-guide-australias-local-wrestling-scene/ and https://medium.com/my-muscle-chef/pro-wrestling-australia-call-to-arms-and-gains-a3edf21dec1c (this one is funny) too. I vote keep. Mathias (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One problem. All four links are promotional, especially the last two (with the first only being a trivial mention. There are also serious WP:INHERIT issues with the SMH article with all the mentions of WWE personnel, as well as similar but not as obvious issues with the Supanova article. It should noted with that link also that Supanova concentrated on the promotions that have a history of presenting shows at Supanova events, furthering the promotional issues. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the last link, I think the content in the other three links are very objective and neutral, and when there is content as you are calling promotional, it is always a quote from someone else, and it is correctly indicated as being so. I also could not identify the same INHERIT issues as you did; none of the arguments used as example in INHERIT apply here. There are multiple personnel involved, and it just confirms that the promotion is notable. Also, it seems INHERIT is written for cases where there is no "verifiable" sources stating notability, which is not the case here. Mathias (talk)

The moment a source is subject to WP:PROMO, it fails the test of objectivity and neutrality by default. Your use of the link with the WWE wrestlers is an example of the following per WP:INHERIT; "Keep: there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable" Granted this isn't a list, but the concept of "lots of famous people" is the same. The reality is that as WP:PROMO rules these sources out, there are indeed no verifiable sources. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An even bigger problem is that the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP which requires "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. So the first reference relies entirely on an interview with Ryan Eagles and has no "Independent Content". The next relies on information provided by a wrestler named Bonza and fails for the same reason. The next sees this organization included in a list but contains zero in-depth information as is required and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The final reference is arguably not a reliable source, is promotional, but also fails to provide any in-depth information and also fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PWA is fundamentally different than a list, so I still do not see how WP:INHERIT applies here. I have not seen in the archives, anyone claiming that a company does not inherit notability from their multiple products, or a school does not inherit notability from their multiple students, and this seems naïve per WP:INHERIT. Unless the company or school had a single notable product or student, which is the only case covered by WP:INHERIT. PWA is also a wrestling school, and these are often associated to their "alumnis"; actually, in this sense PWA seems as notable or more notable than many schools out there (exemple: Laanila_Highschool, Arsakeio_Lyceum_of_Patras, Escola_Alegria_de_Saber, Merici_Academy).

If for a second we consider the "school" side of PWA, its notability is further strengtened. For example, notable people that performed for PWA:

• Will Osprey [14]
• Adam Brooks [15]
• Jonah Rock [16] [17]
• Indi Hartwell now in WWE (List_of_WWE_personnel) [18]
• Tenille Dashwood [19]
• Billie Kay and Peyton Royce (or Billie Kay and Peyton Royce) [20] [21]
• Dakota Kai [22]
• Kellie Skater [23]

Also many of these links talk about PWA events. "Rock lost the Pro Wrestling Australia heavyweight title to Caveman Ugg this summer. He had defeated Robbie Eagles for the strap back in June." These statements assert the notability of whom? The wrestler? The event? The promotion? The discussions in the archives show public opinion would say it supports the notability of all of them, though the event would be ruled out for not having other supporting sources. The wrestler and the promotion seems to have enough support, though.

There also seems to be a large disadvantage because the promotion does not sell physical products, but rather events made by people and attended by an agitated audience, which is why sources on the promotion will often talk about certain wrestlers, or interview them about their experience; if they sold inanimate products, nobody would be saying PWA inherits notability of them, as is happening here. If you see the "product" as being the wrestlers that appeared in the promotion's events, many of these products are notable, as shown in the links above. The history of the promotion is the history of these wrestlers that achieved fame after passing through PWA, just like the history of your usual company is hardly based on the evolution of its products; again another reason as to why WP:INHERIT makes no sense to me.

I agree with HighKing that the sources I gave are individually not as rich in content as we would need, but summing up the numerous information about PWA events and wrestlers out there, I cannot agree that PWA does not meet the notability standards commonly accepted here on Wikipedia. I disagree that the sources are PRIMARY, though. The authors are not directly involved with the promotion, and they do offer their own analysis of the subject. Seems to fit WP:SECONDARY more. WP:GNG seems to apply if considering that the set of sources and statements constitute significant coverage, as seems to be the case to me.

"The moment a source is subject to WP:PROMO, it fails the test of objectivity and neutrality by default." seems like a convenient way to always make yourself right. In any case, I understand why one would see the sources as non-neutral, as it contains quotes from people. But quotes are quotes, and as long as they are clearly identified as being so, the content can remain neutral. In this respect, HighKing's arguments make sense, in that there is much less content if you remove all the quotes. But see the sources and arguments I gave above. Mathias (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you do not understand the restrictions of inherited notability as you just did it again through every single name you put there - indeed as you admitted ("makes no sense to me"). The claim to notability must be neutral and independent of any other subject. You are in effect promoting the school yourself by using those names. As WP:INHERIT makes clear, that is an argument avoid in an AfD and yet you are trying to make such a case. And no, they are primary sources because they are promotional - that is, the promotion had massive input to the sources to the degree that all neutrality and objectivity disappeared. Taking quotes from involved wrestlers is risky at best to back that up. To that end you need sources that avoid these factors entirely, and they don't exist as indicated below by High King. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to make the case for WP:INHERIT here, as your best argument involves frivolously calling the promotion article a WP:LIST. Without the list assumption, you are unable to point out the argument in WP:INHERIT that applies here, as none of them refer to inheritance from multiple entities, nor to cases where the relation to other objects is notable per itself. Mathias (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You listed notable wrestlers above in a manner that contradicts your claims entirely. Thank you. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep it's one of the oldest biggest company's in Australia and produced lot's of wrestlers who have competed All over The World — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pidzz (talk • contribs) 08:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these claims have no sources whatsoever and should therefore be ignored, unless sources to prove them are provided. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very rude to say his vote should be "ignored". Are you a moderator here? Even if you are, that is going too far... Mathias (talk)

I was referring to his claims, not his vote. Please read what I said again if you wouldn't mind. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not really focusing too much on the word "vote" when I commented. It does not matter. It is impolite to say anything anyone said should be ignored. Unless of course you are a moderator and, as a consequence, fully knowledgeable of the norms and policies around here. This does not seem to be the case, though, now that I searched. In general, not only your statement above, you are more assertive than your actual position and status supports, especially considering the conflict of interest, resulting from your involvement in this deletion process. I read Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process, and the "closing administrator" is able to make the right call to give less weight or not (notice how it is more polite to put it like this) to the vote of Pidzz, without your intervention or comment. Ironically, what might be ignored here is your undue intervention. Mathias (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have failed to address my comment correctly. The focus was the claims, not the vote or the person. Your response here can be interpreted as willfully disruptive. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Leaving aside the fact that the article is totally refbombed with 58 sources, most are PRIMARY sources. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, they are all promotional and/or PRIMARY and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I think the points you raised are very sound. I read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion and, if possible, wanted to know your opinion on merging the article on, for example, Professional wrestling in Australia. Mathias (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion would be "No", for what it's worth. None of the promotions that do have articles are mentioned there (and nor should they be as none have done anything notable despite the promotions themselves being so although I query - and have done for some time - Melbourne City Wrestling's). To merge would be inconsistent, and would also attract random redirects of promotions that could never be made into articles going forward. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MathArcher, it is clear that a lot of work has gone into this article. Be aware that you can always request that the article is moved to drafts so that you might continue to work on it and it would preserve the editing history. On the surface, there is a case for merging the article with Professional wrestling in Australia and is seems logical to discuss professional franchises and promotions in that article but Addicted4517 makes the point that the article currently doesn't have anything to say on those. That doesn't mean that a new section couldn't be created or wouldn't be relevant. You might want to ask at that article's Talk page? You could also create a "List of wrestling promotions in Australia" article and describe each promotion in a short paragraph. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks a lot for replying, HighKing. I will consider your suggestions, particularly the tlak page one. There already exists List_of_professional_wrestling_organisations_in_Australia, but the edit history suggests that Addicted owns it, so I do not intend to touch it. Also thanks for the cordiality. Mathias (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one owns anything on Wikipedia. My activity on that page is simply to maintain the established status quo with such lists that is "no entries that do not have articles on Wikipedia". That is not owning the page. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article should be kept as PWA is one of the leading promotions in Australia. I am working on reliable secondary sources to cover this article. But if anything at this stage, let's see it moved back to the draft space until it is sufficient for those involved to see it moved back to the main article space. Even last resort, as mentioned above, added to professional wrestling in Australia in a paragraph. There is a severe lack of coverage of Oceana professional wrestling in the notability essay which is a bias towards this region, something on which we should all work on changing. Let work together! Thank you. Jammo85 (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable independent secondary sources. This has already been established. Sending it to draft is not an option as it has already been brought out of draft prematurely three times. That can not be allowed to happen again. The reason there is no coverage is quite simple. It is not notable. There are no sources that pass the requirements of this online encyclopedia. When there are no sources that pass all the required criteria, articles are deleted. That is just the way it is. This promotion is not notable. It is NOT "one of the leading promotions in Australia" because there are no independent reliable sources that recognise it as such. That being case, claiming that it is would be original research. The option of merging with Professional wrestling in Australia has already been addressed. There needs to be a local event that had major coverage for it to be included, and there has only been one (the one that is already there). Addicted4517 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all know your stance on this. Reliable independent and secondary sources should be available for this article in the near future. So seeing this article back in the draft space would be optimum over a deletion, because the page will just be re-created when these sources are available and I can predict what will happen. Jammo85 (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my stance. It is fact. There are no reliable independent secondary sources. Your prediction is a violation of WP:CBALL and is therefore not relevant. It will not go back to draft because Pidzz will just put it back into the main space again without a review as he has done three times already. This promotion is not notable under the rules already noted. Your arguments fail multiple points in WP:ATA. WP:SOURCESEXIST, a version of WP:MERCY and a less blatant version of WP:ILIKEIT than Pidzz are the stand outs. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Please see this source for a good history of the PWA's involvement sport in Australia: Kotaku. Also another from the Morning Herald, which certainly should count as a reliable secondary source: Sydney Morning Herald. And one more from ABC: ABC. It appears to me that there is enough to show independent notability.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Concertmusic: Both of the first two links are promotional and are therefore not independent and can not be used to prove notability as a result. The last link only makes a casual mention of PWA and concentrates on the female wrestlers and the subject of intergender wrestling. The article is also more focussed on Melbourne than Sydney as well. The issue with the lack of independent reliable sources remains as is. There are none. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - neither of the sources provided by Concertmusic could be considered "promotional" - the SMH and ABC are clearly sources that are independent of the organisation, particularly the former. This meets GNG, despite the state of the article (which is not an issue for AfD). Deus et lex (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deus et lex: It would appear that you did not read the ABC link. It makes one casual mention on this promotion. I was not referring to it as promotional. The two I was calling promotional were the Kokatu link and the SMH link. The SMH link is definitely promotional on the headline alone where it quotes the promotion itself. It follows this with two biased remarks without proof in the first paragraph alone ("Australia's top professional wrestlers" and "its grandest ever show") and then quotes from the wrestlers themselves before the clearly promotional quote at the end of the article. It does not matter that the Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source normally. In this case they are promoting an event and it invalidates the article as independent. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a promotional article. The SMH is independent of the source. The fact that it talks about an event does not make it unreliable. A promotional article is one that is sponsored by the event or something like that. This does not fall in that category. Your statement is not correct. I think you need to accept that this article is covered by valid sources and stop trying to draw some spurious argument about sources to make a point that isn't there. Deus et lex (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add, if it was something sourced from a media release, it would attribute something to a "spokesperson" or something like that. This article does not do that. Deus et lex (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a promotional article. It does not have to be paid for - that's WP:ADV. The language used in the article is clear. It is promoting the event, and is therefore not independent. Do not assume based on SMH's general reputation. The specific source is not reliable. Besides as High King pointed out above there needs to be at least two to pass WP:NCORP. Also, the quotes are effectively press releases. I think you need to accept that this article has no independent substantive reliable coverage and that my argument is not spurious. It is strong based in policy and a failure to recognise promotion when one sees it doesn't assist the opposed view. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really get frustrated when I have to engage with such nonsense arguments like this on AfDs (and there's some pretty bad arguments added on AfDs about sources out there). You are just making things up and reading something into a source that isn't there to argue a point that is soundly wrong. There is nothing in that article that suggests it is promotional. The SMH is a longstanding independent newspaper and has a good reputation for good journalism. It is an ordinary journalistic article. Deus et lex (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear here that you have failed to recognise a promotional article when you see one. I am not making things up. You are trying to place the SMH's reputation ahead of the individual article, and that is an error on your part. It is an ordinary journalistic article that promotes an event. A refusal to see this really frustrates me. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make the article promotional. If you say that article is promotional then any article that talks about an event or something happening would fall foul of that policy, meaning that the only articles possibly used for reliability are critical ones. That would rule out a whole swathe of articles that are validly used in countless other articles. Promotional articles have to do a lot more than just talk about that an event is happening. This is not one of them. Deus et lex (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Return to Draft - If this article is kept it will be the wrong decision even though consensus appears to be otherwise. Addicted's arguments can't be ignored; except for one. Returning it to draft. Jammo has claimed fresh sources and he should be given the chance to provide them and draft mode would be ideal for this. Addicted's concern over Pidzz restoring it again can be prevented by an administrator locking off the move option to prevent this. That way it can be independently reviewed once Jammo finishes his claimed work, but if he doesn't and leaves it for six months, Addicted will get his way anyway. I think this is the best solution for the prevailing situation. Wang.Wahine 00:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Can a move be blocked without blocking other things as well? Addicted4517 (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Wang.Wahine 05:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

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. This could be closed as merge, as it has been done previously, however there is no one coming up in favor of merge after second relisting. (non-admin closure) SMB99thx my edits! 07:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Russian Mil Mi-24 shootdown[edit]

2020 Russian Mil Mi-24 shootdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOTNEWS WP:GNG, common sense. Non-notable military incident with no consequences to aviation regulations or procedures and minimal diplomatic consequences. Military accidents/incidents are generally not notable in their own right. Petebutt (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Sourced and can be improved by creator. Another chance should be given. Note to nominator: Under with Wikipedia key policies and guidelines does your AfD fall under? BlueD954 (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a helicopter being shot down simply isn't notable unless there is a wider impact which doesn't appear to be the case here. WP is WP:NOTNEWS. Mztourist (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just not of note for a stand-alone article and is already mentioned at List of aircraft shootdowns which is all that is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MilborneOne Mjroots (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It was important and serious incident as all experts told. Last time that happened the same thing, there was heavily consequences in Turkey-Russia relations. You can not decide because it doesn't have consequences now, it can have consequences after. I'm very surprised that almost everyone want deletes this...A real pity...--KajenCAT (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add Analysis, the ones who are not familiar with Nagorno-Karabakh conflict may think that this incident is not important, however the section Analysis needs to be add in order to prove the notability . Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Գարիկ Ավագյան, this seems a textbook example of WP:ASSERTN. Can you explain why you think the subject is notable? —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade Piron, there is still investigation going on this incident. We need a bit more time for serious analysis, however there are already claims from experts that the main purpose was to disrupt the ceasefire agreement in Karabakh. And probably, this was done from Turkish border/by Turkey. After this incident, the agreement were signed between three countries, not including Turkey itself. So, this incident is a precedent of the end of 2020 Karabakh War. I suggest not to remove immediately, but to wait a bit more. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Գարիկ Ավագյան, that sounds like WP:CRYSTAL? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. I hate to think how Wikipedia would have dealt with World War II if it had been a contemporary conflict. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that almost half of the 6 million articles would be associated with it, with people giving so much coverage to the smallest events. – SmartyPants22 (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, with other articles on the conflict. No need for a standalone article on one helicopter being shot down, when hundreds of vehicles/aircraft were destroyed. – SmartyPants22 (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Azerbaijan, which had been resisting ceasefire efforts for weeks, agreed to a Russian-brokered peace deal just one day after shooting down this Russian military helicopter. I think that the notability of this incident is clear. --JECE (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are tons of similar articles. Why should this one in particular be deleted? Super Ψ Dro 01:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OSE, is not a valid argument at by any stretch of the imagination. – SmartyPants22 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not explain by any stretch of the imagination why is this article supposedly less notable than others. Super Ψ Dro 00:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Shooting down a Russian helicopter (only Russian kit hit during the conflict) ended with a profuse apology and peace accord later that night. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Գարիկ Ավագյան. Śαǿturα^💬 21:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the conflict article. We don't generally cover military aircraft shootdowns in conflict - it's WP:ROTM because that's what war is - and while the results of this shootdown may have been the armistice that's relevant to the conflict as a whole, the shootdown itself is not individually notable and notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger:

1. The shootdown is not WP:ROTM for at least two reasons. Firstly, it was a shootdown of the military aircraft of a non-belligerent power. It is not run-of-the-mill to shoot down military aircraft from a power you are not at war with. Secondly, the shootdown did not occur in a warzone. There were no hostilities near the Nakhchivan-Armenian border. It is not run-of-the-mill to shoot down military aircraft far from a warzone.

2. As for the "notability is not inherited" argument, I'm not sure why you think that it applies. If the shootdown lead to the armistice, it is only because the shootdown was independently notable, because it could have drawn Russia into a conflict with Azerbaijan, which could have led to a Russo-Turkish war. Even if it had been an Armenian aircraft that was shot down, it could have triggered the Russo-Armenian mutual defense treaties (the CSTO and a separate 1997 treaty) and Russia's entry into the war given that the shootdown occurred inside Armenian airspace proper. So no, the shootdown was not simply an event that may have led to the ceasefire. It was already notable before the ceasefire.

--JECE (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak merge per Bushranger. Firestar464 (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Mztourist: a helicopter being shot down simply isn't notable unless there is a wider impact which doesn't appear to be the case here. WP is WP:NOTNEWS.   // Timothy :: talk  17:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Expectable military accident during then-ongoing war, only 2 deaths, no notable victims. Brandmeister^talk 13:04, 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. Missvain (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chengmai Center[edit]

Chengmai Center (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 indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete - I tried searching the Chinese version of the name but couldn't find anything to pass GEOFEAT or GNG Spiderone 10:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice of recreation - a skyscraper of over 1,000 feet will likely pass WP:GNG at some point, but all I see is skyscraper blogs at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 18:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SportingFlyer above. Nothing on the page is worth drafting/merging.   // Timothy :: talk  20:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tradewinds Square Tower A[edit]

Tradewinds Square Tower A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per WP:TOOSOON at least, especially since the property owners say they aren't planning on building any time soon. Mangoe (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if this ever does get constructed then it will definitely be notable so I think the best option is to delete and then allow recreation if and when construction does ever begin and we get some decent coverage Spiderone 08:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mangoe. Speculation about something that may get built, sometime in the future is not notable.   // Timothy :: talk  14:41, 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 merge to Guru Nanak. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 09:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of places visited by Guru Nanak[edit]

List of places visited by Guru Nanak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Almost entirely unreferenced list that, I believe, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Will happily withdraw if it turns out that these visits form a coherent set meeting WP:LISTN—Guru_Nanak#Journeys_(Udasis) suggests that they might—but at present I'm not seeing it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This list looks correct to me but there are no citations! May be someone should improve it.Serv181920 (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Guru Nanak Notable subject but does not require stand alone page. Orientls (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Guru Nanak per above.   // Timothy :: talk  17:17, 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 keep. Feel free to discuss mergers, if of interest, via the merge process on talk pages. TY! Missvain (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tapete[edit]

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

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

Zero in-depth coverage that I could find. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Royal National Institute of Blind People#Books and add this to that part of the article; not really notable on its own but definitely a good point to bring up there. Nate • (chatter) 03:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with the above point. Balle010 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Worth noting to unfamiliar editors: this likely got an article in the first place because of YouTuber Techmoan, whose specialty is obscure audio formats. Raymie (t • c) 06:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article has difficulties with the conventional notability policy as it was a niche device that was discontinued just before internet sources would have been readily available. But as a pioneering audiobook device for a minority group it should be covered per WP:CSB. The Ferrograph museum and Techmoan videos are the two best sources of information, and the various museum pages bring the article up to WP:THREE sources. 213.205.198.132 (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was able to locate three mentions of the RNIB tape library and the Tapete format in late 1960s UK trade publications. There seems to be enough here to pass the WP:GNG, especially given the above CSB concerns. Raymie (t • c) 20:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: FYI, until a few days ago this title was a longstanding redirect to Tapete Records, which is a relatively obscure music company but with quite a number of wikilinks. There was then a brief edit war around whether to convert it to an article or keep as a redirect. For some reason an RfD concerning this was speedily closed and the redirect converted to the article you see by the closer. Incoming wikilinks for the record company have been cleaned up, but as yet the audio format is an orphan. Lithopsian (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this is relevant, but at the time of the RfD close, the page had only one incoming mainspace link [24]. – Uanfala (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - a number of sources have been added since this was nominated. The format seems to have attracted enough coverage to pass GNG (although mostly in niche publications). Spicy (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and trim to Royal National Institute of Blind People, sources do not merit a stand alone article.   // Timothy :: talk  16:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A well-sourced and supported encyclopedia article. I very much agree with the notability note above. If not Keep, Merge as a section under accessibility in the article Royal National Institute of Blind People. But I really do like the details and the research behind this piece.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Brown (artist)[edit]

Joan Brown (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST. The article is based primarily on a primary source interview. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it is fairly easy to find sources for the California painter Joan Brown. However, based on a search for sources, the Joan Brown who is the subject of this article does not seem notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even by the standards of 20th-century Oklahoman women artists, this person is incredibly obscure. It appears people might be working their way through the Oklahoma Native Artists Oral History Project at OSU and creating articles for everyone interviewed in that project? Those are primary sources, not secondary published sources indicating any degree of notability.Ahalenia (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Ahalenia[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the chapter in the Broder book looks fine, but you can't base an article on only one decent secondary source. No luck in searches. There should be more articles on Native American women artists, but unfortunately this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Keep due to the excellent work done by Jooojay. A surprising and welcome rescue. Curiocurio (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – this article needed more clean up in my opinion. I added a few new citations (it's now up to 14 sources) and I believe this passes WP:GNG now. It's hard to find sources because "Joan Brown" is a common name and a lot of the wrong sources show up, she does seem to have significant press and experience within the Native American museum scene and her alma mater Bacone College has a notable art program. She was mentioned in many sources as one of the well known artist from Bacone College, which I think fulfills WP:ARTIST. Jooojay (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – There may be a COI issue with this article, I noticed one editor used a primary source from the University of Oklahoma interview and they went on to use more primary sources from that same publisher in many other article related to the arts and the museum. A notice was left on the talk page. Jooojay (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Joan Brown who is the subject of this article is a well known Cherokee artist. Numerous sources confirm she was a leading artist among her peers in her prolific period[25],[26],[27] and being asked by Red Earth Festival to participate in the oral history project is clear indicator of her notability. She wouldn't have been asked to exhibit at the Cherokee National Museum[28] had her tribe not felt her work was exemplary. Being designated a Master Artist of the Five Civilized Tribes Museum is a significant award for Native artists.[29] Having pieces in major Native American galleries, collections, and museums is significant.[30][31][32][33] There is adequate information here to confirm that she is notable. (Given the time frame that she was prolific, and the closed nature of Native American art circles, major repositories like the collections at the Oklahoma State University, the University of Oklahoma, or Bacone College are the likely places one will find material on Native subjects. I have been unable to find archives of Muskogee, Tahlequah, or Tulsa newspapers which cover the 1970-1990 period, but those are far more likely to carry information on her than papers in Oklahoma City.) SusunW (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Every artist who exhibits gets written somewhere about but wp:artist provides clear notability requirements:

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

"The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Which of these criteria apply to this artist? Ahalenia (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Ahalenia[reply]

Comment For the purposes of AFD, it is sufficient to pass the lower threshold of WP:GNG, which this artist clearly does. Curiocurio (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY adding a dozen WP:RS to the original 2. Nice work @Jooojay: Theredproject (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per the excellent research and improvemnt work of Jooojay, the artist passes WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The improvements make this article a worthy encyclopedia entry with good sourcing and support. I would encourage previous reviewers to take another look.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – this is an example where adding a tag like ((more refs)) would have been more appropriate first, especially if the proposer has difficultly finding references for a person with a common name. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-This article is worthy of keeping as Joan Brown in a significant Oklahoma artist. This page has been critiqued for using sources too closely connected with the state of Oklahoma and its universities. However, due to the regional nature of native art and the lack of nationwide focus, it is the state universities of the artist's home state who are most interested in collecting those stories. Mrs. Brown happens to be from Oklahoma and thus OU and OSU are most interested in her stories. While the original article did indeed focus heavily on a interview with Mrs. Brown, the article also included several books and newspaper articles, which conforms to Wikipedia's notability and proper source standards. The number of those secondary sources has since increased. Moreover, she has exhibited in several galleries, and so while she meets the lowest standard of notability, she is notable nonetheless. Though she has a common name and is not well known outside of Oklahoma, Joan Brown is a notable figure in the Oklahoma Native artist community and should not be excluded from Wikipedia for insignificant reasons. Yes, the author is trying to fill in the blanks of Native Artists in Oklahoma, however simply because these artists do not currently have Wikipedia pages does not mean they are insignificant. The goal of Wikipedia is to fill in those gaps and to easily share information with others. And many of the artists found in the Oklahoma Native Artists Project collection are indeed notable and found in many books, newspapers, and exhibition catalogs, which all meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. It is simply an issue of no one bothering to translate that information to Wikipedia until now. Claire.ringer (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Zoozaz1 talk 00:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essex 73's[edit]

Essex 73's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

All 900+ words are unverified to any reliable sources, failing the notability guideline for 14.55 years, now. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. Every other team in the Provincial Junior Hockey League have articles. - SimonP (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added some refs. A ProQuest search finds 3,700 articles on them, so plenty of reliable sources. - SimonP (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that is has SOME sources, I've removed anything else that wasn't cited (IAW the verifiability policy). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. You are thus removing your deletion request? - SimonP (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not an administrator who has found a consensus that the page in question meets the notability guideline. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  But on a personal level, are you now supportive of the article remaining to get to that consensus? - SimonP (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally wouldn't consider three local news reports over the span of 1.17 years to be significant coverage, but I of course support leaving this discussion open to allow other contributors to evaluate otherwise. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 07:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't need an administrator's approval to retract your own AfD nomination. You can certainly do that yourself. Ravenswing 04:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, that's not what I meant to imply; I should have been more verbose. I want the discussion to run its course and attract as much attention as it deserves, obviously deferring to an administrator if they determine that consensus warrants early closure. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 07:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The team in question meets WP:GNG and there is room for improvement. A poorly written article is not grounds for deletion. Flibirigit (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which was not the case upon nomination nor at this time. As for [a] poorly written article not being grounds for deletion, I have no objections to the demolition of that straw man. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG. Also, mass deletion of unsourced info is bad etiquette per WP:POINT and is considered blanking. Consider inline source tags in the future please. DMighton (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The behavioral guideline on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point doesn't seem applicable based on a reading of that page. The verifiability policy says that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." There's currently a spate of activity in the article; when it's done, I'll again remove all unverified claims in the article in accordance with that policy. As for inline source tags, I have considered it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And you will be reverted. Do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced. as per WP:POINT. DMighton (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think you're reading those pages in their entirety.

  The verifiability policy says, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." There are encouraged caveats, but they do not abrogate the wherewithal to remove any unverified material.

  The behavioral guideline on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point says, "If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content... do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source. do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced." You quoted the third part, which depends upon the first, which isn't the matter at hand. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I read just fine. Actually - it is the matter at hand. You were disruptively making a POINT. WP:POINT does not allow you mass blanking. You unfairly removed content, it was reverted with the intent to source and request sourcing from other users.

  I would also like to point out that according to WP:BLANK, instead of the mass removal of information that you don't find adequate, list for deletion (which you did) - not list for deletion then start blanking to make a point of it. Also, WP:USI recommends that you ask for citations. Initially, you were WP:BOLD, but now that it was questioned... requesting citations is better etiquette. DMighton (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You were disruptively making a POINT. Given I'm wholly unaware of it, can you educate me as to what point I'm attempting to make by removing "[a]ny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it"? You unfairly removed content What exactly is "unfair" about removing claims that lacked sourcing, a process provided for by the verifiability policy. I didn't redact the page's history; it's all still there to be read and sourced if possible. […] it was reverted with the intent to source and request sourcing from other users. When it's challenged, unverified claims should only be reintroduced to an article with "an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." […] not list for deletion then start blanking to make a point of it. Again, I need your guidance on exactly what point I'm attempting to make. I removed the unverified claims from the article because they were unverified, not as an end-run attempt at manual deletion. As it stands, 81.92% of the prose is unequivocally unverified as required by policy, and—without regard to the outcome of this deletion discussion—if it continues to be so, I (or possibly anyone else) will remove it duly. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Look, I'm not looking for a pissing match - this is getting into the realm of TL;DR territory. I've told you my view and I believe you are wrong. It seems we will not be agreeing with each other and that is fine. The "disruption" and "unfairness" I see is you removing content that other people may have sourced if you had of actually gone to the bother of tagging as unsourced - that is my quibble. This impedes others from possibly rectifying the situation. Instead of allowing the AfD process to play out as it should, you started blanking content. As none of the content is controversial, I suggest you take a softer approach. From WP:VERIFY, In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.. As you say, 81.92% of this 900 word article is currently unverified by inline citation - that will take some time. Patience is a virtue. DMighton (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The situation was an article which lacked verification for most of its claims; I rectified that situation. The AFD process (this very page) is still proceeding as it should. Your suggestion has been seen. We have been patient for over fourteen and a half years. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The improvements are appreciated, and provide additional referenced support to clear that bar for me. I also see the original blanking attempt, which I just don't understand. The nominator then listed for AfD - why not go there in the first place if you knew how to do so? Lastly, as a member of a set of articles, this piece is a necessary piece of a larger puzzle.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I can tell from the page's history, it's never been blanked. I, the nominator, proposed the article for deletion because it'd never been sourced in its entire 14+ years; after Flibirigit (talk · contribs) removed the ((prod)) template, I brought it here. When SimonP (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) provided a few sources for the first time, and there was a legitimate aticle upon which to build, I removed everything else that was unsourced (in addition to other edits). My sequence of actions was PROD → AFD → V, none of which involved blanking.

  As for being "a member of a set of articles": I'm sorry, I honestly didn't know that such articles couldn't be deleted. What does that policy or guideline say, specifically, about my malfeasance? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies on the blanking accusation - not really sure what happened when I checked it and received a blank page, which now does not happen. Having said that, I am certainly not making any claims to malfeasance - but am simply stating that I much prefer to have an article relatively untouched for a fair evaluation at AfD. I do feel that if this article was deleted, the entire set about the teams in the league would be worse for it.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimagi[edit]

Dimagi (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. WP:MILL. Fails WP:ORGCRITE, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 01:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As the original author of the article and a relative expert on the CAP theorem, I have no real opinion on the deletion of this article at this time.--Michael White^T·C 18:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SIGCOV- just a cursory look at the sources, and they look ok. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lets look at the sources one by one.

* https://money.cnn.com/2008/12/26/technology/mobile_health.fortune/ We're tackling problems that make economic sense and are something we care about and think we could make a big difference in," said CEO Jonathan Jackson Fails WP:ORGIND.

* Dead Link Dead link.

* Vikram Sheel Kumar: Software Design Kumar hopes that within five years Dimagi will have designed more open-source software that, like the Zambia application, can be adapted for use worldwide. Fails WP:ORGIND.

* Company site

* [34] Dead link. An event listing.

* [35] Dead link

* [36] Malware page

* [37] Dead link

* [38] Genuine ref.

* Optimizing Network Connectivity for Mobile Health Technologies in sub-Saharan Africa A paper written by a Dimagi employee. Doesn't establish notability.

I don't think there is sufficient references to support it. Their app works in 80 countries, so there must be some coverage. It think if it is found found notable, it should draftified until it is improved. scope_creep^Talk 09:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per scope creep. BD2412 T 21:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Please see this 36-page paper by the World Bank, which could literally be used to cover all of this article in references. The paper contains 2 pages of its own references. As far as I am concerned, this resource by itself covers all concerns. Having said that, there are 980 hits when searching Google Scholar, and a number of those lead to citations referencing the subject in scholarly journals.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Concertmusic, the significant coverage is out there (even if its not in the article) based on a search of Google Scholar. I don't personally think the article is in that bad of shape such that it needs to be moved to draft, but I also wouldn't oppose that. Regardless, I don't think it should be deleted on notability grounds. DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. per Concertmusic Rajuiu (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That is a good reference, no doubt and if there was three of them I would be closing the nomination myself, but at the moment one reference is insufficient. scope_creep^Talk 08:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding references: WHO, Commcare, PlusCare in Journal of Adolescent Health, and NIH. There are a handful of additional articles on the National Institute of Health that make small references especially to CommCare, which seems to be the claim to fame for Dimagi - but the two (CommCare and Dimagi) are always mentioned hand-in hand.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're fat reports all right, no doubt. I think I'm ready to bale out. Do you fancy updating the article @Concertmusic:. I will get rid of the old references that have been identified as true junk. Nomination withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out three dead refs + a malware page ref. scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look in the next 1-2 days to add the sources where appropriate. Thank you!--Concertmusic (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion has been a bit of a mess, but trends towards keeping if anything. Sandstein 11:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Monterroso Culvert[edit]

Rio Monterroso Culvert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG / WP:NBUILD. Per the creator's own admission, there are no references to be found, and at least some of the content is their own WP:OR. (There is, admittedly, one RS cited, but it relates only indirectly to the subject matter, and doesn't even mention the culvert in question.) Has been draftified and rejected at AfC multiple times, but the creator insists on publishing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet any notability guideline, not least GNG and NBUILD Spiderone 10:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is noted that the Monterroso river was recognised by its town as “the most important river in estepona” and did stand out hugely in Estepona’s town before being culverted however, due to its situation,lack of geological information and the culverts physical shape (tourists suspect a random tunnel in the middle of a beach is sewerage) most tourists do not recognise that it is a natural geological river. I am aware that the lack of encouragement to study and explore this rivers history results in a lack of citational information that exists, or official sources that have been destroyed by age due to the fact that the culvert is extremely old. There are very few youtube videos on this subject however one that may be a reliable source shows the culvert being measured on google maps. There was a info bar on the video where all google earth graphic visuals are credited, The bar notes Geogr. Nacional, Landsat / Copernicus, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA and GEBCO. I have taken into note that the citations on the subject has basically become so old that they don’t exist anymore. The Wikipedia article was created to raise awareness about the subject so that it does not drive away tourism and that it is not a wastewater plant, it was a natural river course once. It was also created to educate people around the world about the large culvert system. I personally think that with corrections and many more changes to the article, which may eventually cause it to become fit for purpose, that the article should not be deleted currently. Thank you Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most of the sources cited in this article are Google Maps or images (not all of which are working properly); the only textual source cited is a newspaper article which is only seven sentences long. For some reason, this article begins, "This article has been extremely hard to find citations for. Most citational materials or people involved with the subject of this article has either been destroyed by age or passed away." The culvert in question wasn't built in ancient times -- according to this article, it was built between 1965 and 1973. Or, in other words, it was completed during the adult lives of many people still living. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Other than semi working google links there is not much citations or information in the river or culvert. When I started studying the culvert 2 years I personally thought it was a storm drain, I did not know anything about the fact that it was/is a river. Once I found out that it was a river by tracking along the road and found the inlet of the culvert, Googling its name came up with absolutely nothing other than several websites about them attempting to troubleshoot its wastewater problem. There still is today almost no citations to look for on the web that are worthy for use on the article. I am now currently deflated of all citations and ideas other than adding a statement noting about the lack of citations, or to keep on searching for citations or adding the photos that was linked, directly into the Wikipedia article without needing to press on intermittent links May have a chance. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all published sources are online. Some might be available in printed newspapers or books that are not available online. But there have to be published sources to support the facts in an article; if there aren't published sources, the article isn't verifiable and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Can't see how it can be notable. Its a generic concrete structure of which there is billions of them. scope_creep^Talk 18:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep The Burj Khalifa is also a general concrete structure yet it is noted as currently the largest building currently existing at 828 metres high. The monterroso culvert is measured at 1,160 metres long which is a 332 metre difference. It is certainly not the longest concrete structure ever built however it is certainly a candidate for longest and/or largest concrete box culvert ever created. It would be a lot easier if there is some type of database that people can compare concrete culverts to. The main goal here is to get some type of citation or data. Other than in person making a video with a measurement tape get there’s not much on the monterroso river culvert. What makes the situation worse is that I do not know Spanish.Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and recast as an article about Rio/Arroyo Monterroso generally. I imagine that sources about this river/culvert exist offline (e.g. Spanish newspaper archives), but I don't have access to them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I recast the article to be about the river and am now !voting keep. I think there is enough information about the river generally, and if Ekec... can find enough reliable sources to write about the culvert, perhaps that could be be broken out eventually. But at this point I don't think it a separate culvert-specific article is appropriate, given that there isn't much reliably sourced information about the culvert specifically. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is absolutely packed with citations about the river monterroso culvert and the river itself, but I don’t think that Wikipedia accepts Facebook cites. however, A portion of the posts are photos that may possess the correct cite worthy information. There is also a book called “Aqua Nostra” ^[1] That note water related things in Andalusia, Page 120-121 in that book notes about the river monterroso. There also is a website citing about the river monterroso’s history ^[2] It also notes something about when the river monterroso culvert was in its final construction (1972-1973) Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Calliopejen1. You may have saved the article from potential deletion. In the far future I may add small amounts of photos of the monterroso culvert but not claim anything except depicting the photo. Hopefully a administrator will close the AFD soon and potentially retract its deletion.

• Comment to User:Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw - An administrator will close the AFD after 7 days, probably on 10 November. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Waiting a few days to see how much the article is improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Regardless of how this AfD turns out, I would like to thank User:Calliopejen1 for making significant improvement to this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify or Soft Delete - The article is still a mess after 60 hours. The article at present is not encyclopedic. It originally had a lede sentence about the culvert. Now the lede sentence is about the river. This is a sign of great disarray, and no progress being made. If the river and the culvert are notable, the work on an article needs to be done with no deadline, not rushed in the remaining three days. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at this now and picking up on your point, maybe what needs to be done is nuke this (I was going to say TNT, but...) and start a new article on the river itself, at Monterroso River or something to that effect. Because surely a river must by definition be more notable than a culvert over it. And in the new article the culvert can then be mentioned, assuming a reasonably RS citation is available, with a redirect from this name. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep The river itself is a lot less notable than about the culvert itself. My personal choice is to see what happens to the article. Due to the fact it’s my first article I have a extremely limited knowledge about how to make the article better however other people may vary. At this point I personally think that the delete notice should be removed because it is no longer in as much of serious state as it was. After all

—-> the main reason the delete notice was raised was due to the lack of citations which have been sorted out<—- 

I still agree that the article is a mess but can’t find the solution to make it “look” better. Feel free to alter its layout but refrain from removing information. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have already voted. You only get one vote. Spiderone 20:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tested the article out on the web and I agree that the article looks extremely messy. Edit: I have now fixed the photo positions for people who view the article on the web. Hopefully it doesn’t look as messy as it was before. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a anonymous user just browsing through Wikipedia and I don’t think the article should be deleted. A few days ago the article looked horrible but I am pleased to say it looks great now. I am on the side of the defendant. The article now looks too good to be drafted or deleted. My vote is now

• keep

I heavily recommend people in charge of Wikipedia should retract the deletion leave the article standing. 2A02:C7F:7282:1100:5D48:1238:1CE:DC10 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC) — 2A02:C7F:7282:1100:5D48:1238:1CE:DC10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• keep

The article deletion was raised due to the reasons noted in the first paragraph at the top of this aFd page. Currently the paragraphs have been met and I have included the main thing that the article needed, citations. The notability level now is at least decent. I now feel confident that the aFd now has authority to be ended. I am also confident that it now follows wikipedia guidelines. Thank you Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have already voted. You only get one vote. Spiderone 20:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Making the article about river itself will not be very intriguing and will probably fail the test for Wikipedia’s notability. This is why I kept on making the article centred around the culvert itself. However if there is a way to change the title of the article from “River Monterroso culvert” to —-> “River Monterroso” I’m sure that the article will look good with its existing content and with more content about the river made more prominent. As a first time Wikipedia article creator I do not have much experience on telling what part of the article needs to be improved however this is why feel free to improve the layout of the article but feel to refrain on removing existing information without my consultation Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

  I have decided to abandon this article and copy the exact content to a New article solely because 

Of the articles name was not very good. The new article is River Monterroso Anyone can change this article to redirect to the “new” article if wanted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please do not blank articles during ongoing AfD. I have restored the article, pending the outcome of this discussion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is now about The river monterroso including its culvert,

it most likely passes a notability test, as possessing as many rights as an article about a river has.

I have seen articles on other rivers that aren’t famous and they all have things in common

. A river infobox<——

. Well separated paragraphs <——

. And well cited <——

These are the things that I will get to work on Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've already cast my ballot and, having read the article again, I stand by it; hence just a comment. I repeat my earlier view that this article should be about the river, with the culvert section bolted on, rather than the confusion it currently is. I also think the references are still weak, once you remove the Google Maps and blogs etc. That said, it is much better now than it was nine days ago when I first came across it. And the passion behind the advocacy is jaw-dropping. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Move to Rio Monterroso. Geographic features are generally notable if verifiable and you can write something about them other than a statistic, and I think that's what we have here - the culvert itself isn't notable, but it's been discussed enough that the river that has been culverted, albeit short, passes I think it's WP:GEOFEAT. What a messy AfD! SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, leaning towards keep in line with SportingFlyer above, as although there are numerous intermittent (and insignificant?) waterways in the area around Estepona, the sources over a number of years discussing the culverting of Monterroso brings it up to wikinotableness. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

searching the web for the “worlds largest culvert” results come up as all corrugated steels most likely because they weighs a lot less than concrete. All mostly 20 to 200 metres in length. in the river monterroso culvert, It has a span of a confirmed 1.16km long.

Another result is of Alaskan highway culvert that was corrugated steel pipe that was installed in 1998. And collapsed just 2 years after its installation, the website is https://www.concretepipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ysk122.pdf and claims that it created “the mother of all potholes”. The sinkhole looks about 100 metres  smaller than the 700 square metre sinkhole of the monterroso. A peice of the pdf touts it to be “the largest construction project in the history of its kind”.

The fact that the river monterroso culvert predates the Alaskan culvert by 25 years, and that the length of the Alaskan culvert at 35 metres long compared to the river monterroso culvert at 1,160 metres long the monterroso culvert may have peaked as the largest culvert in the world for several years if it isn’t by the president day. That potential fact alone could be a reason for its notability. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify and move to Rio Monterroso - the topic as a river seems to meet notability guidelines at WP:GEOLANDS, though I'm still skeptical that the topic meets notability guidelines as a culvert. In either case, I agree with Robert McClenon that the article is still a mess. Much of it is unverifiable original research, which should be cleaned up before being published in mainspace. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Move to Rio Monterroso. I second (or third) SportingFlyer and Coolabahapple above. The AfD is a big mess, and the article also needs some attention, but the author(s) have really given it a good shot to make serious and requested improvements. I would hate to simply dump the honest effort made.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think There should be a Spanish version of this article when i am certain that it qualifies for Wikipedia but that is in the future, and if Rio Monterroso is thinking of being used then first there should open a debate wether the Monterroso is an “Arroyo” or “Rio”.

“Arroyo” means stream when translated to English and “Rio” means river when translated into English. In the summer it is an arroyo and just trickles out. and in the flood months it is a raging river.

However I have seen where the riverbed is dry in the inlet of the culvert, and where 1.16km south of the same culvert, the water is flooding out on the beach On the outfall of the culvert. An example is on google earth/maps where the inlet^[1] Is completely dry and the outfall directly south ^[2] Is completed wet and flowing with water due to the shear amount of pipes and inlets that flow in. including the Juan Benítez culvert that has a pipe within it that always discharges freshwater. The pipe in their ramps on and off and the flow on the beach is seen changing speed with the pipe in the Juan Benítez culvert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adesua Dozie[edit]

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

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

Although as at the time this article is being nominated for deletion there are no sources present in the article, a before search did show this, which appears to be written by a guest editor, this which appears to be a promotional sponsored post & this which appears to be a mere announcement. In all, I do not see WP:GNG satisfied as subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been significantly improved with the addition of credible independent sources. this is in addition to the several in line link that has now been added to the article. The article therefore meets Wikipedia's policy of verifiability and Notability. I therefore vote for keep. Omorodion1 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — The editor above @Omorodion1, is the article creator.

I have analyzed most of the sources used in the article already in my opening AFD rationale, your two new inclusions appear to be this(which is an interview thus isn't independent of her) & this which is a list article with very short biographies affixed to each entry, this doesn’t adhere to WP:SIGCOV & of no value to WP:GNG which requires significant coverage. How else might I explain to you that this subject isn’t notable just yet? If you want me to create a table I honestly would. Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've reviewed the available sources and the reasoning provided by Celestina007, and I agree that the article fails WP:NBIO. Edge3 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 13:04, 27 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) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 10:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Rae Sapienza[edit]

Peggy Rae Sapienza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Questionable notability in spite of long list of references, many of which seem tangential or indirect, and most don't appear to establish notability. Large sections of unsourced text make it problematic to further verify notability. If subject is indeed notable and article kept, this thing needs serious cleanup and better sourcing. Mansheimer (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am disputing the call for deletion of this article. You have noted that there are plenty of references, you feel that not enough are direct, and too many are tangential: I disagree. I see the Wiki terms of keeping or not keeping an article 'some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept." This article interests some people, specifically those who are involved in Science Fiction and Science Fiction Conventions. I don't see the large blocks of unsourced text that you refer to - perhaps there are a few bits here and there, but to characterize them as large blocks is a bit extreme. If you want to mark for clean-up that might be more appropriate, but even then I think that is pushing it a bit. Riverpa (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Peggy Rae was a very important figure in the field of sf fandom, especially in the USA. This particular article has some 20 references to her career in the field, covering all aspects of her life which in itself should qualify her for inclusion. References are only tangential if the reader either disagrees with them or doesn't understand their significance. The article currently only shows one "citation required" flag which indicates a small cleanup rather than a full deletion. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this needs clean-up and improvements in tone, references, etc. But this nomination is an example of substituting AfD for improvement. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems adequate sourcing already in the article to meet the general notability guideline. Camille Bacon-Smith's work on fandom is considered reliable in the academic community; she interviews Rae in Science Fiction Culture and later refers to her as a "highly expert" con organizer.[39]. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:27, 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) 19:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Ireland and Georgia[edit]

History of rugby union matches between Ireland and Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not seem to yet meet WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG; there do not seem to be many reliable sources discussing the rivalry between these two nations in any depth. These countries are both High Performance Unions but I don't believe that this article should be exempt from meeting GNG. No prejudice against recreating the article if their rivalry does gain a bit more attention later (incidentally, these two are due to meet for a fifth time later this month). Also appears to be a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 17:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NRIVALRY, just stats and listcruft basically. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a history at all, just stats. Per above, no particular rivalry. Nigej (talk) 17:45, 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 keep. Keeping -

On a related note (this has nothing to do with my closure, however) - one of my first punk rock tapes was a Blatz tape. Missvain (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Eggplant[edit]

Robert Eggplant (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 subject, no reliable secondary sources. Mansheimer (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Guitarist for Blatz, also known as Robert Burnett. He published and edited the very influential zine Absolutely Zippo. Rolling Stone calls him a pivotal figure. He was featured in the documentary Turn It Around: The Story of East Bay Punk. Also there is significant coverage of him in several books and journal articles about the punk scene.[40][41][42][43][44][45] Also, this is one of a series of sometimes questionable deletion nominations by a seemingly aggrieved editor. gobonobo ^{+ c} 06:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion including reliable books and journals so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I second (or third) based on Gobonobo's solid research seen above.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Pig Gold[edit]

Gary Pig Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Questionable notability, only one citation provided, appears to be a vanity page. Mansheimer (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: there's no evidence of anything that would pass the criteria listed at WP:MUSICIAN. He's worked with plenty of people, but notability is not inherited. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The page requires editing to make notability clearer, and formatting and citation fixes but the subject is notable, particularly for his documentation of the punk scene in Toronto.--Smallison (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he has a lengthy staff wrtten bio at AllMusic here as well as a review of one of his tracks, and there is reliable sources book coverage already referenced in the article. He passes WP:BASIC in my view so deletion is unnecessary, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He's more notable as a music journalist and critic than as a musician. He's interviewed in oral histories about the Canadian punk scene, including On a Cold Road: Tales of Adventure in Canadian Rock (2011) and Treat Me Like Dirt: An Oral History of Punk in Toronto and Beyond 1977-1981 (2011). — Toughpigs (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The improvements made since listing for AfD are a good start, and I simply don't see a reason to delete a sizable and informative encyclopedia article.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Scotland and Georgia[edit]

History of rugby union matches between Scotland and Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not seem to yet meet WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG; there do not seem to be many reliable sources discussing the rivalry between these two nations in any depth. These countries are both High Performance Unions but I don't believe that this article should be exempt from meeting GNG. No prejudice against recreating the article if their rivalry does gain a bit more attention later. Also appears to be a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 17:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:NRIVALRY, just stats and listcruft basically. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would agree at the moment that there is nothing particularly notable about Scotland vs Georgia matches. That might change in the future (eg were Georgia to become part of an expanded six nations or there is an annual autumn fixture), but for now I do not see that there needs to be an article on the subject. Dunarc (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a history at all, just stats. Per above, no particular rivalry. Nigej (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, simple intersection does not indicate notability. jp×g 12:54, 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) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between England and Japan[edit]

History of rugby union matches between England and Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG; there do not seem to be many reliable sources discussing the rivalry between these two nations in any depth. These countries are both High Performance Unions but I don't believe that this article should be exempt from meeting GNG. Also appears to be a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 17:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:NRIVALRY, just stats and listcruft basically. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a history at all, just stats. Per above, no particular rivalry. Nigej (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, simple intersection does not indicate notability. jp×g 12:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reason to have an article detailing all the meetings between two teams who have literally played each other twice ever -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 29 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sepy Dobronyi[edit]

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

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

Longstanding article with some notability which I would prefer have the community weigh in on rather than swing the axe (scythe?) myself. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No actual WP:DELREASON has been stated. Most of the sourcing in the article (which is plentiful) is offline. All I can do is assume good faith that the sourcing was actually as presented by the person who added it and as such would support notability. Even if not I think this is at the very least a WP:BASIC pass per these sources - 1 2 3. Dobronyi is notable as a well-known playboy with at least two major incidents of notability (the dispute over his making of a nude statue of a Hollywood star, the auctioning of Queen Elizabeth II's under wear) and probably many others. FOARP (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FOARP: The reason for the CSD tag was G11 (unambiguous promotion), I should have mentioned that in the nomination statement but it is - as you correctly point out - not present. Sorry about that. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• G11 is a speed deletion tag and clearly this is not an article that should be speedily deleted. Like G11 says, "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion". Clearly this is a notable subject at least on WP:BASIC grounds. To be honest I think a lot people are being way too trigger-happy with WP:PROD, and articles that are eminently saveable, or not even particularly problematic, are being deleted as a result.FOARP (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. I don't understand the rationale here. Does "swing the axe" mean "stubbify" or "overhaul"? Like FOARP, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the many offline sources listed, so if there's no problem with notability or verifiability, why are we at AfD? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AleatoryPonderings: Swinging the axe means deleting it outright. I can swing that axe on my own authority, but in this case I want the community to weigh in on the matter before I delete the article because I don't see a clear cut case here for G11. If the community feels it should be deleted, then the axe is swung and the article dies, otherwise it stays where it is and someone who gives a damn about it can fix it up. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This "artist" gets 0 hits on JSTOR, and a 5 on scholar, and looks like no critical piece on his "art", so one might argue he is not notable enough for his "art" (sculpture, jewelry, photo).

However, other people e.g. book illustrators tend to get this sort of silent treatment, and that should not automatically establish non-notability, IMO.

The subject is evidently a fixture in the cultural scene in Miami, with other former Cuba inhabitants like Ernest Hemingway in the mix. Consequently he has sculpted/photo'd some actors and sold a strand to Mrs. Hemingway, which is written up about in some mags and books, and this seems sufficiently WP:GNG. --Kiyoweap (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per discussion. The page seems well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• per The Miami Herald: "Any recounting of his history must carry a disclaimer: The only person who could separate fact from fiction in his colorful life died of liver cancer just after midnight May 29 at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach". We have very good reasons to be skeptical about the veracity of this article. Vexations (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity or not of various incidents of his life is a page-quality issue, similar to that of any other notable fabulist or charlatan. Simply stating the points of his life over which there was some doubt (i.e., the queen has not acknowledged that the underwear sold were actually hers) is sufficient, but that claims he made about his life are verifiable as claims, we need not state whether his claims were true or not. Still a WP:V, WP:GNG pass. FOARP (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a bunch of cleanup before I finally gave up and G11d the article. For reference, it previously looked like this, and included gems like and royal crown jeweler,[3] aristocrat, art collector, world traveler, movie maker, pilot, wine collector, sportsman, playboy, and bon vivant. I decided to attempt a (risky) speedy because I realised that while the promotional content may be removable, the fundamental issues this article has cannot be addressed without a full rewrite. It has been cultivated by a single SPA for years, and while concerns about serious reliability issues were raised in 2011, an IP (likely the principal author) removed the objections and carried on. encountered copyright violations, unreliable sources, and a bunch of highly questionable claims (see the page history to see my attempts at cleanup). The article makes a number of exceptional claims and backs them up with sources that are questionable at best, including various editions of playboy). It reads, in essence, like a movie plot, and I get the feeling that that is what it actually is. I recommend reading the pre-cleanup version in full; it makes so many incredible claims that I came to the conclusion that nothing in this article should be taken at face value, simply because it all seems massively over-exaggerated. I have no confidence in any information included in it. Hence delete for the sake of being a reliable encyclopaedia and per WP:TNT Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify: Pre-cleanup, the article claimed, among other things, that the subject was one of six pilots chosen to try out the world's first Rocket-powered aircraft., was shot down in his aircraft and captured by the Russians and being held in prison in occupied Hungary but managed to escape in one day and immediately returned to Budapest, spoke six languages, walked from Budapest to Sweden through occupied territory (despite the chronology implying that this was post-war), designed a brooch for Queen Elizabeth's wedding, then went to Caracas with only $150.00, his suitcase and the suit on his back, where his art studio became a mecca for various celebrities. Skipping half the page, we then find claims that he traveled to 89 countries, climbed mount Kilimanjaro and the Matterhorn, was injured by an arrow to his leg while being in New Guinea to to observe a primitive tribal war, only to recover within three days with the help of the natives, shot a lion that was charging at him, etc. etc. I have little faith in the credibility of the article. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I also forgot this subtle wink: Dobronyi's trademark while living in Cuba, was a pocket full of shark's teeth which he passed out to the girls of his choice.[21] Over 600 females are a member of the Shark tooth club.[12], as well as that he was the one person in Cuba who put shirts on artists' backs and bankbooks in their pocket for the first time in the island's history. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to argue WP:TNT here but clearly the article is saveable - just delete the WP:PROMO stuff. The subject is clearly notable based simply on the obituary references. If an editor is being permanently disruptive then WP:ANI them. His claims about himself being dubious is not an issue (we cover fiction on Wiki) so long as their dubiousness is also highlighted and they are described as claims, not stated as facts. Speedy is most definitely not supposed to be used for cases like this - it is not simply a nuke button that you can press to avoid the hard work of editing. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FOARP that Blablubbs should deal with editing issues by methods other than total annihilation (deletion).

You don't need to get so compulsive-obsessive about purging every claim either.

As an example, Yul Brynner article retains discussion of his (fictitious) Romani descent claim.

And non-outlandish claims like having "only $150.00" as an escapee, you can let slide.

Also a false perception of anachronism, bcz nothing strange about difficulty in getting visas to a (formerly) occupied state in the immediate post-war months. --Kiyoweap (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoweap, I'll reply to the rest of the arguments brought forth by you and FOARP later, just noting that I don't appreciate the suggestion that someone who holds an opposing viewpoint must be mentally unwell, nor the insinuation that I am merely being lazy here. Also dropping Special:Diff/987360955 here to support my argument about the doubtful reliability of the article, even when it comes to claims that are apparently sourced. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, I admit I am not a psychiatrist, so maybe I should have avoided a clinical term, but the point is Wikipedia rules as per WP:PRIMARYCARE do not endorse an editor rejecting every self-made claim, and even allows those found in his own autobiography, provided it is non-controversial. Your criterion seems to be that you feel entitled to remove a non-controversial self-made claim even if it is from a secondary source, and I'm asserting that you are over-reaching.

The statement of having $150 on one's person as a refugee, might be controversial in your assessment, but thousands if not millions of refugees have a similar experience to tell with no way to substantiate if that was the actual sum on money they had on them. --Kiyoweap (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to litigate specific claims made in the article. The problem is that the text makes no indication of whether these are claims or presented as fact by the sources; did he claim or was he one of the first pilots of rocket-powered aircraft? It is likely that some of the claims presented are true, it is likely that some aren't; but given the quality, appropriateness concerns (see Diff above) and inaccessibility of the sources (I doubt anyone will be able to find many 1962 issues of "Today. ME- and the Gold-Plated Girls", which is the source for that specific claim), we would essentially have to hat half the article with "the following may or may not be true". Alternatively, we could be left with a two-sentence stub. So yes, I think WP:TNT applies here.

And no, you shouldn't have used the clinical term regardless of your professional background. And if you feel that my edits are a sign of "entitlement", you can follow BRD and revert them all. Twinkle has a great function for that. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seems notable, although COI applies, as it was written by Sepy1031, and his Wiki activity revolved around Sepy's page only. (Tho' it couldn't be him, since the article was written in 2011, and Sepy died in 2010. Most likely one of his fans or someone among those lines must've written it.) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm frankly surprised that this should require any further discussion, after the opinions above were virtually unanimously for keeping the article, except for the dissenting opinion of the initiator of the deletion request. In any case, the presented reasoning for deletion is without merit. More so, I believe that following up with deleting this article, essentially based on the gut feeling of one user, would set a dangerous precedent, which would potentially give way to deletion discussions for virtually any article on topics pertaining to history, which by definition will contain facts that may not be verifiable any longer, since the witnesses or records are most often not readily accessible anymore. What is important to be understood is that this is part of the fundamental nature of the matter of authoring of texts on the subject of history and biographical material on subjects which are no longer around. In general, the discussion has yet to bring forward a valid reason for deletion. One, the notability of the subject of the article has not been questioned. And two, the article generally does well (where it can) by being adequately sourced and this has not been questioned either. Much rather, part of the discussion here seems to be related to the nature of the claims presented in the sources themselves (of which many are tabloid newspapers). While many of the claims on the subject's life presented in these sources may be impossible for us to verify, this circumstance is not of relevance to this article itself. This is because the fact that these stories on the subject‘s life were widely publicized, found widespread attention and became part of public canon (even if mostly geograhically restrained to parts of Florida), makes them historically relevant and thus worth preserving. Even if the article is deleted, the fact that the stories were widely published (and read) will never be reversed. The stories themselves that this article references are by now of public relevance, because they have shaped an enduring image of a notable subject, whether verifiable or not. The article in itself is valuable in collecting the publicly available information of the subject, which would otherwise remain scattered across archives.TwentyEightyFour (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) — TwentyEightyFour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep but stubify. This could be cut down to a couple paragraphs. It is chock full of trivia at the moment. Possibly (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I second the lengthy and thoughtful comment by TwentyEightyFour. The article is well-referenced and supported, and I am puzzled by the desire to delete good encyclopedic information.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlet AB[edit]

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

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

Entirely unsourced company page, fails to prove it's notability. Can't find anything significant about them after a quick search, so likely fails WP:NCORP. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Atlet has a long history as a major company within its niche. There was a source in the article – the book Atlet: 1958–2006 by Henrik Moberger, who has written several other books about Swedish companies, but it was self-published. However, plenty of non-trivial coverage about the company in Swedish newspapers (not available through a normal search, but through paywalled newspaper archives). I've added three. /Julle (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Julle made improvements, adding sourcing. Please also see a niche article about Atlet's exit of the North American market. There is enough here for me to see value in the article.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Since there have been two relists and no reliable sources, I think we're done here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Babilon be salon[edit]

Babilon be salon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Sources in the article are Facebook posts. BEFORE showed nothing (under Babilon be salon, ባቢሎን በሳሎን, or Babylon in the living room) that meets WP:RS WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.   // Timothy :: talk  02:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  02:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  02:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only reference is the Ethiopian National Theatre's Facebook page, which contains only a one-line notice for the play. None of the content is coherent. Nothing would be lost by deleting this. I doubt there is anything notable here, and even if there is, it should be started again from scratch. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – as above. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if it cannot be sourced to anything other than Facebook and other unreliable websites then it shouldn't be retained Spiderone 10:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was tried to add more citation from many more sources in addition to Ethiopian National Theatre's Facebook page. So I believe it is worthy enough to be on Wikipedia. Yitbe - 5:42 PM, 06 November 2020

This only appears to give it a passing mention and the other sources all look completely unreliable, especially the mp3 download one Spiderone 16:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply

Dear User:Spiderone, for you do not understand Amharic, it doesn't mean the sources are 'unreliable'. But to make clear for others:

1. The first, which has a full information about the genre, running time, writer, actors and so on, and second, which clearly inform when the Babilon be salon return to the stage, citations are directly from Ethiopian National Theater's official Facebook page.
2. The third citation is about the participated actors. For instance, actors mentioned here: አለማየሁ ታደሰ or Alemayehu Tadesse, ፍቃዱ ከበደ or Fikadu Kebede and others.
3. The fourth describe about the Babilon be salon's popularity all over the country.
4. The rest one, the fifth and sixth, are the audio and video direct reference.

After all these, if you believe it should not be on Wikipedia, do your pleasure. - Yitbe, 06:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So that means only the fourth source gives any indication of notability. Anyone can make a Facebook page about anything. The third source focuses on the actors rather than the drama itself. The fifth link is an mp3 download and the sixth is basically a YouTube video. Spiderone 16:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - has anyone found any WP:RS showing significant coverage for this? Spiderone 12:27, 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. – bradv🍁 03:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horton Gallery[edit]

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

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

Questionable notability, was nominated once before and consensus was to delete. A lot of references are shown, but these are for artists rather than the gallery itself (which is itself misleading and possibly a bad faith effort to make it appear that there is plenty of coverage of the actual gallery when there really isn't). There doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable secondary sources and possibly not enough to justify an article. At best, this is going to be stuck as a stub. Mansheimer (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2013-05 ✗ delete

Logs: 2013-05 ✗ deleted, 2013-05 ✗ G11, 2013-05 ✗ deleted, 2013-05 ✗ deleted

• Delete The article has been refbombed, the list of references is currently larger than the text of the article, most of which are not relevant to the criteria for establishing notability. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, either relying on coverage of exhibitions or artists (failing CORPDEPTH), mentions in passing or Primary and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I went through all the sources to see if there was any material about the gallery beyond a mere mention. This is what I found: [46] SEAN HORTON (presents)
  [47] nothing
  [48] we hope to get there sometime this week to open Community Action Center @ Horton Gallery.
  https://observer.com/2011/06/l-e-s-gallery-expands-to-berlin/ - 100% about subject
  [49] dead link
  [50] “Sun Screen,” an exhibition of Tichý’s work, is on view until September 10, 2011 at the Horton Gallery in New York City.
  [51] nothing
  [52] dead link
  [53] nothing
  [54] Horton Gallery, 504 West 22nd Street
  [55] nothing
  [56] nothing
  [57] nothing
  [58] In his New York solo debut at the recently opened gallery Horton & Liu, Michael Berryhill does both.
  [59] dead link
  [60]dead link
  [61] Kirk Hayes’s paintings at Horton Gallery occupy a realm somewhere between the trompe-l’œil earnestness of William Harnett’s hyperrealistically rendered sheets of paper in The Artist’s Letter Rack (1879) and the tragicomic sumptuousness of the bulbous-headed smoker lying about in Philip Guston’s 1973 Stationary Figure (both pictures are on view at the Met).
  [62] nothing
  [63] Touch’d Lustre, Grill’s first show at Zieher Smith & Horton, presents eight oil-on-linen paintings, all completed in 2015.
  [64] Zieher Smith & Horton in Chelsea is now showing nine of her contemplative abstract paintings, medium-scale works with floaty, interwoven patterns, shapes and marks in palettes that range from misty pale greens and lemon yellows to pulsing reds.
  [65] The title of Zieher Smith & Horton’s two-man exhibition of David Byrd and Peter Gallo, “The Patients and the Doctors,” is taken from a fiery 1947 work by the poet-mental patient Antonin Artaud.
  [66] nothing
  [67] Zieher Smith & Horton 516 West 20th Street
  [68] Horton & Company 504 West 22nd Street, Chelsea
  [69] The galleries Zieher Smith and Sean Horton joined forces last year, doubling their abilities to find young or underexposed talent.
  [70] Along with Canada, Sean Horton has earned his place as a poster boy for the Lower East Side gallery movement. After some time spent in Boston, where we first met, Sean went to New York and worked with Nick Lawrence before opening Horton Gallery. Sean loves painting, and he has an extraordinary eye for picking emerging talent. His star, Keltie Ferris, may have left recently, but his program continues to be one of the freshest in New York.
  [71] C. Sean Horton, a founder of Chelsea’s Freight and Volume gallery, opened his own shop last fall.
  [72] The gallery, which, according to its owner, Clayton Sean Horton, focuses on “periphery” and “overlooked” artists, has been open since October 2006. Its current exhibition focuses on Royal Robertson, a Louisiana folk artist who died in 1997, and Hilary Baldwin, a New York sculptor. Never heard of them? Exactly.
  There is just the article in the Observer that is actually about the subject, but that's one source. Vexations (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]