< November 03	November 05 >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ren Klyce[edit]

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

Non-notable sound editor/mixer. While on paper it looks like he has multiple Oscar nominations, the vast majority of them aren't unambiguously for his work specifically, given that he's one of multiple names listed for the nominated film in question. BEFORE turns up a lot of copypasta'd churnalism and more nominations of the same nature as is presently cited in the article (String: "ren klyce"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 23:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. He has been nominated for seven Oscars. And a quick WP:BEFORE found a ton of sources, several of which I've added to the article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep as 7-time Oscar nominees are notable. Collaborative creative efforts are not discounted. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable for being nominated for multiple Oscars and for having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources like these below:

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add on, a good way to search people's names is to include the name inside quotation marks and outside them, like "ren klyce" ren klyce (since one name or the other will be used more frequently in a result than the full name), and it helps to add a relevant keyword like sound to the query. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience a news piece doesn't use one-or-the-other without using the full name first, and appending "sound" in this instance wouldn't have much helped because the results I got with just the name were not pulling up hits for any other Ren Klyces. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can make a difference because using quotation marks means to search for that exact term. I think having the same term without quotation marks can allow for results where the last name is used multiple times throughout. Furthermore, adding "sound" means allowing for results related to sound work, either covered in general on a given website or covered in a specific piece. A quick comparison shows the more pertinent sources showing up on the first and second pages of Google. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use the general search results for BEFORE; I use the News search results as those are more likely to provide usable sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed that distinction. I actually think Google News search has been insufficient for a long time for older results. Maybe a decade ago, it was actually really good at listing older news-related results, but I haven't found that to be the case since then. I use the general search results and eyeball the web domains for the ones I know are reliable, or ones that seem potentially reliable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Slavick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an example of the type of articles that were kept in 2006 but we now do not accept. Candidates for US Senate are not default notable, but that is the only thing this person has that even comes close to a claim to notability. All the coverage is related to the campaign where Slavick got less than 6% of the vote. Nothing at all close to notability exists. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:Politician. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Due to failing the notability guidelines for politicians. Less then 6% of the vote is way to low even if a person was to be on the more relaxed side of the guideline. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Re-echoing Johnpacklambert, the subject of our article fails to satisfy WP:PROF. Celestina007 (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As well as the failure of WP:PROF and WP:NPOL already discussed above, we need to consider WP:AUTHOR. But I only found one published book by him, DuBose Heyward (1981), and one published review, [1]. It's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any grounds for a keep. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability with only 3 sources. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find curious that Lambert and Eppstein use their time in efforts to delete Wikipedia reports. I think before I ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006 (partly because the Maine Democratic establishment honchos had illegally removed the Israel-Palestine plank I largely wrote in the convention-adopted platform calling for recognition that we were not an honest broker and should defer to the UN to gain Palestinians' independence in the Occupied Territories) snd I was contacted by Wikipedia, then considering deletion of my entry. I replied that I did not care what they did (which seemed to shock the caller). But Lambert and Eppstein gets my back up. I coordinated the Catholic peace movement, Pax Christi, in Maine for over 20 years which role included organizing the 1995 national assembly in Maine; created its Oscar Romero Award which brought Brazilian Cardinal Arns, Haiti President Aristide, the Sandinista priest/foreign minister Miguel d"Escoto, Richard Rohr, Joan Chittister, David Dellinger (standing in for mugged Dan Berrigan), a Nobel Peace awardee, and other notables to speak in Maine. I published hundreds of feature articles in the foremost U.S. Catholic diocesan weekly, organized several notable academic conferences. I renewed Maine criticism of Israeli racist repression of native Palestinians after the second intifada. Besides Wikipedia detractors'-noted publications, I published a review of the work of Lewis P. Simpson in Cross Currents and a long Faulkner obituary in the National Catholic Reporter, as well as at least a half dozen articles in Elizabeth Madox Roberts Society book collections and dozens of Portland, Me. press op eds. [Perhaps most notably, I sired a Carnegie Mellon first University Professor of Art, a U. of North Carolina Art chair holder, a Maine biennial art exhibition exhibitor, and a Hong Kong and New Zealand poet and book author. I have long felt that my former SUNY Geneseo colleague Leo Rockas, now retired from U. of Hartford, to be more deserving of Wikipedia attention than I have been.] 70.16.196.85 (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Khaled[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Ne senior appearances beyond Iraqi league, which isn't fully pro. No detailed coverage, all provided references amount to trivial mentions and transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why was the PROD removed? Spiderone 22:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A well developed article for a player in a major league which fails our NFOOTY standards, I can't comment on GNG due to a language barrier but the article is well developed with a number of references, not all of which pass GNG (Facebook etc.) Would like to see more analysis on why all the sources fail GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 11:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: - I took a random sample of sources, numbers 1, 5, 10 and 15 and tried to decipher them through Google Translate:

1 is a brief news article about transfer from Erbil to El-Mina, in my view this is WP:ROUTINE;

5 is an article about a club suffering financial difficulties, he does not appear to be mentioned;

10 is a brief match report which mentions he scored a goal;

15 is a profile of all players on the team, including the following about this player: "Ahmed Khaled: The heart of the Mina defense team played a big role and carried a heavy burden in front of Naft Al Wasat attack and defended fiercely for its goal to contribute to securing the victory."

Based on my above sample summary, I cannot see any significant coverage of this player. Giant Snowman 11:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NFOOTBALL and also appears to fail GNG based on my sample survey of sources above. If anybody finds anything which is significant then please ping me so I can re-consider. Lots of little coverage in local media does not confer notability. Giant Snowman 11:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our ludicously low inclusion standards for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is entirely routine; in most references, Ahmed Khaled is barely even mentioned and those that do focus on him are just because he has signed for a new club or signed a new contract. Spiderone 10:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per G5: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saqlainify Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djay Malyk[edit]

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

Borderline A7 eligible article for a non notable musician who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG & doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. All sources used in the article appear to be unreliable, at lest two-third of the sources used in the article are links to sites where anyone can upload their music such Amazon, iTunes, Discogs & the lot of such unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See previous the AFDs, creation, move, deletion, and edit filter logs of of similar-named pages:

DJ Malyk · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions]
Draft:Dj Malyk (Producer) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
Draft:DJ Malyk · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

If the current content is substantially similar to any content deleted at AFD, G4 speedy delete as a re-creation. If it's not substantially similar, please say that you checked and it's G4-ineligible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - zero evidence of notability and page has been continually recreated Spiderone 09:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Article consists purely of junk sites like facebook, discogs, itunes, lastfm, resident advisor and ticket sites. No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An editor has created a new draft on this topic. Although the editor did not submit it under articles for creation I summarily reviewed and rejected the draft. The reason for the rejection is There is already a page at Djay Malyk. That page is the subject of this deletion discussion. If that discussion results in "deletion" that is a sign that this topic is NOT suitable for an article in Wikipedia and no further drafts about this person should be made until the issues raised in that discussion are addressed. On the other hand, if the discussion results in "keep" or "no consensus to delete" then this draft should be rejected as redundant. Either way, I am rejecting it. I added another note, Note to other AFC reviewers considering allowing a new page to be created on this topic: Pages have been created numerous times on this topic. Most have been "speedy deleted" for one reason or another. Please see the AFD discussion for a list.

Draft:Deejay Malyk · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowfin Business Intelligence[edit]

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

Promotional page. Was un-deleted, and a large list of awards promptly restored. No fixes to the page's promotional content to make it neutral have been made. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I previously proposed this for deletion. Yellowfin does not meet the notability guideline for companies. – Teratix ₵ 22:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I'm tempted to say salt also). This clearly isn't notable and only serves to advertise the company. It really shouldn't have been recreated in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt No indication of being notable. Fails WP:NCORP on many ways. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Andahl[edit]

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

This page exists in a nebulous gray area. Per WP:NPOL, Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. While this person was elected, they died before taking office. Most of the coverage is related to their death from COVID, which seems to fall into WP:BLP1E. There is some precident here, but it likely does not support keeping this article. For example, Jack Swigert died after being elected to the U.S. House but before he could be sworn in. Despite this, he already satisfies notability guidelines for being a NASA astronaut. Dennis Hof was elected to the Nevada Senate and died before taking office, but he was already notable for owning and operating the Moonlite BunnyRanch and other legal Nevada brothels. Andahl is not notable for anything other than being elected to the North Dakota House of Representatives and then dying before taking office. KidAd talk 20:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was news coverage about his death; United States state legislators are notable. Also there was coverage in the news media about he being elected to the state legislature after his death. Thank you-RFD (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't a state legislator. KidAd talk 21:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was also on a local planning/zoning commission for a decade and a half, and got endorsed by the state Governor and junior Senator. That may add notability. If there were a specific Category:Politicians elected posthumously article, I would say he would be better as a section of that, but there isn't, so I'm not sure. Wodgester (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has received national, not local attention. It's very rare that a dead guy wins an election, and he should be notable for that alone. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NBC News, Fox News, and the Washington Post among others have published articles about him. This particular election is notable. Beaneater (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and has received media coverage as per Beaneater. Abishe (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above points. JamesVilla44 (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the elections page, pretty clear WP:ONEEVENT--Ymblanter (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an interesting piece of trivia, but there isn't enough to warrant a whole article. Wires77 (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was elected to the North Dakota House of Representatives, although posthumously. On top of this, being elected posthumously is quite notable in itself, and this has received widespread news coverage, even abroad (examples: Italy, France, Spain). --Pesqara (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the WP:NPOL presumptive notability threshold (which explicitly includes "people who have been elected to [positions as state legislators] but have not yet assumed them"). The additional coverage he is receiving as a result of his death is just icing on the cake; he would be sufficiently notable even if not for this new national coverage. —Caesura ^(t) 18:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree this is in a grey area. The question for me is if he would qualify under the whole "people who have been elected to [positions as state legislators] but have not yet assumed them" thing. Which I don't think he does, because it says "yet" and he's never going to fill the position. Whoever replaces him will. He also died before the election. Maybe he only got elected because he died and it was a "sympathy vote" or whatever. Who knows, but I think the clause would be valid if the won and then died before taking office. That's not the case here though. Also, most of the coverage about him is because of his death. Therefore, one can assume if it was not for his death, say he just dropped out or whatever, that there would not be coverage. So, it's not his run that is notable per say. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Caesura the coverage of his death is additional to his election per WP:NPOL Spudlace (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning is winning, per NPOL, doing anything later has never been required. Look at the bio of the guy this guy beat. Almost thirty years of nothing, and he's far from unique in that. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to the claims above Andahl was not elected to public office. He won the primary election, not the general election. So he was never elected to public office. Winning is winning, but winning a primary is not being elected to public office, so he does not meet inclusion criteria and the article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He beat fellow Republican Delzer in the primary while alive, then beat Democrats Volochenko and Babb in the general while dead (now the seat he legit won while dead is in limbo till some other obscure Republicans pick a living obscure Republican to sit in, unelected). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think posthumus election counts. He was not elected than died, he died and was then elected. The claims he won the election before his death are incorrect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the proposer has stated, there are precedents. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any proper encyclopedia or biographical dictionary that covered national state legislative election winners would include him - he is officially a winner of a state legislative election. Combined with the uniqueness of the event combined with the resultant media coverage. I think he fits. GuzzyG (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. I do not think this article's existence is a gray area, or that BLPIE applies. Many other editors have already quoted the exact wording of NPOL, which this article passes as written. I see that Category:Politicians elected posthumously has been mentioned (as has Dennis Hof), but I wish to specifically bring up Roger Aguilar Salazar, Harry Bauler, and Thomas Higgins (Irish politician) as examples of people who were elected to a notable office, but never assumed them. The articles about them exist, as should this one, because the NPOL criterion is written such that service in the notable office is not necessary, just election to the role. Vycl1994 (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He did win the election, and there's verifiability. /Julle (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:GNG --Nuujinn (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Arkansas#Libertarian Party. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Dale Harrington Jr.[edit]

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

Subject is only notable for the 2020 United States Senate election in Arkansas. If he wins, an article can be created, but this fails WP:NPOL at the moment. I recommend ~~moving it to draftspace and~~ restoring the redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Arkansas#Libertarian Party. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 20:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 20:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Arkansas, does not meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - getting the highest ever percentage vote for a Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate is a notable achievement, even though he didn't win the election. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Kill all these blatant campaign advertisements which keep getting created every two years. There are discussions about this very topic occurring elsewhere, BTW. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — While his achievement is of note, ultimately he has received little to no national news coverage, and fails to meet notability guidelines. I agree that it should be redirected to 2020 United States Senate election in Arkansas. TheMrP (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — While 33% is a significant pull, he has not received any national coverage. If he is given national coverage, then reconsideration should be given. Curbon7 (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete candidates for public office are not notable, especially those who get trouced in the general election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the identified page. He can be properly covered there. SportingFlyer T·C 01:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Arkansas Spudlace (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has had significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.^[1]—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 19:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SpanishSnake, have you even read WP:NPOL? Every one of your references is about the senate election. Please don't make arguments that have no basis in Wikipedia policy. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan357, it does not matter that all the references are about the senate election, under WP:BASIC, people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources.—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 22:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumed" being the key word there. Coverage does not entitle you to an article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SpanishSnake, the specific guideline we have for notability of politicians, WP:NPOL, trumps WP:BASIC. NPOL exists because of the common situation in which candidates receive significant coverage solely because of their candidacy. This article very clearly violates NPOL. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan357, As far as I can tell, it is not established policy of Wikipedia to exclude coverage of unsuccessful political candidates for consideration of notability. But even if that was the case, Ricky has received national coverage reliable sources such as Reason Magazine and Newsweek, both which go beyond routine coverage.—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 00:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SpanishSnake, again, WP:NPOL. The coverage he has received is typical of a senate run. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan357, WP:NPOL does not say that the typical coverage of a senate run is to be excluded from notability consideration. It simply states candidates for political office do not have inherent notability. WP:NPOL only trumps WP:BASIC when an otherwise non-notable person holds notable political office.—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 00:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. It can be added to the article that Harrington received the highest percentage vote for a Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:44, 9 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) 19:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soundings Podcast[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject meets WP:PODCAST#Notability, WP:NWEB, WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. In terms of the latter (and WP:SIGCOV in particular), the single link/reference in the article itself is a primary source. Given that the subject is an Irish podcast, I've done a WP:BEFORE search of the main news sources in Ireland. All return only trivial passing mentions. For example, a search of the two main Irish newspapers of record return just three (Irish Times) and nine (Irish Independent) results respectively. The latter results including several false positives and trivial passing mentions in "listicles" like this. I note that a previous speedy seems to have been declined on the basis that "one of the contributors to the podcast was notable". While that may have excluded the article from speedy deletion, WP:NOTINHERIT and related guidelines would seem to apply to a more complete AfD review. And I'm just not seeing notability independent of the podcast participants. WP:COI, WP:SPA and WP:NOTWEBHOST concerns also arise. Guliolopez (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No neutral third-party sources to establish notability, reads like self-promotion. Anyone and his brother can have a podcast these days. Why is this one different ?Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is semi-advertish, the sourcing isn't great at all to establish notability, and there's million of podcasts out there these days. There doesn't need to an article about every single one. There should be something uniquely notable about it. Which isn't the case with this one. It's an average podcast, that has less then average sourcing about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the podcast. Article is definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL. Since the 2 hosts have pages of their own, a redirect will be impossible per WP:XY. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no delete votes and significant coverage indicated to satisfy GNG Fenix down (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Mérida[edit]

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

All the usual database websites that we trust [2] [3] [4] seem to suggest that she has never played a game of football at the senior level so clearly fails WP:NFOOTY on that basis. This was largely due to a cruciate ligament tear that she never recovered from [5] [6]. The reason I am putting this for AfD rather than PROD is because there is, perhaps, a case that she meets WP:GNG because of the news coverage regarding her injury. I am leaning delete but happy to be proved wrong. As always, please ping me if important sources are found for GNG. Spiderone 19:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I've just found about three more pieces of WP:SIGCOV on top of the ones that SportingFlyer has found. In addition to this, it looks like she was injured in a game against Real Sociedad, which may or may not have been a competitive fixture anyway. In any case, please withdraw this daft nomination. Not my proudest moment. Spiderone 22:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other feature articles on top of the single one in the article: [7] [8] [9] [10] And mentions: [11] [[12]] along with a couple other older sources which appear in the search but don't resolve when clicked. SportingFlyer T·C 20:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on sources found by SportingFlyer which indicate GNG is met. There are plenty of notable male footballers who never made it despite young talent (injury, personal reasons etc. - see Sonny Pike as a classic example) and I see no reason why she should be any different given the coverage about her. Giant Snowman 22:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The draftify votes are misguided, she won't become notable simply by playing, her club is not in a fullyprofessionalleague to satisfy nfooty. However, any editor who thinks they have found sources to satisfy gng can readily have the article restored to their draft space. Let me know if you want this done. Fenix down (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Font[edit]

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

Sources in the article as well as this [13] all seem to indicate that she has not played a game of senior football yet. I also see no indication of being able to pass WP:GNG. At best, this seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON for Barcelona's third choice goalkeeper. Spiderone 18:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify since she might debut in the near future. SportingFlyer T·C 11:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per SportingFlyer.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the reference available, person is not notable in her profession
Delete This article was already deleted (via prod) for failing WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 13:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Seems to be the best choice per above, no need to fully delete if she makes an appearance, as it will just have to be recreated once again. Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - draftify seems like a sensible option Spiderone 15:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many people are under the impression Font will be notable if she appears for Barcelona - she won't as she will still fail NFOOTBALL. Dougal18 (talk) 15:05, 11 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) Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Kamal (scientist)[edit]

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

This misses NPROF by a mile. The claims that he is in the top "2% of scientists in the world" are sourced to blatantly unreliable PR spam, which comes from this site originally. I can't verify his supposed success (like number of citations) and the study itself does not confirm his status in the "top 2%" either and I don't believe "pro vice chancellor" meets NPROF/NACADEMIC. Praxidicae (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable. not unreliable source. India Today has reported that. The Siasat Daily has done same. Times Now reported. These newspapers and news channels are popular in India. And this is the official website. check it too. Hasan (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TimesNow is not an rs, and the others, as I pointed out above, are copied from a blatantly unreliable spam site. The literal study itself proves those statements factually incorrect, it places him no where near the top 2%, not even the top 20%. Praxidicae (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and academic notability miserably. The spam sites brought up by Hasan do not in any way establish notability for the person (and are not really reliable), at most they establish his suitability to be placed on a stand-alone list titled something like Standford University report on world's top 200 scientists or something ridiculous like that. To be clear, though, that list would never be created because it is itself not notable (announcements of individual winners is not significant coverage of the topic or of the general notability of the list of winners). There is no significant (independent) coverage in reliable sources to allow for a standalone article under wikipedia GNG guidelines, and his pro vice chancellor position means nothing under academic notability. I can see no case to be made for his notability. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article as it stands now says he is vice-chancellor of a university. I see nothing in Google Scholar about him, but he shares a common name with a few dozen other scientists. Nothing terribly notable about a vice-chancellor. We need sources showing papers he's published, conference lectures he's given, quotes about him from other peer-reviewed journals... Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If he were actually the vice-chancellor, he would have a case for WP:PROF#C6, as in the Indian system that means the head of the whole university. But pro-vice-chancellor is a lower-level administrative post that does not pass that criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass GNG or NPROF and the sources are very questionable. Natureium (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The subject easily passes WP:NACADEMIC. Per [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] and also being a Fellow of National Academy of Sciences, India [22]. The article needs good amount of editing to show his works. But improvement is not a deletion criteria. This nomination clearly lacks WP:BEFORE. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would really help if people added the identified sources to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The9Man. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The9Man. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on academic citations disclosed by The9Man I would say it meets notability. Someone should update this article with more sources. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. - Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Gieschen[edit]

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

Fails every point of WP:NACADEMIC. No independent coverage found. schetm (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nominator. There is a well-cited book on GS and some other publications with minor cites. What is your assessment of these? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Coverage isn't focused on him. --Kbabej (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources about the subject. Reywas92^Talk 21:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as WP:Too soon. Theology is a very low cited area and the GS record is slender at present with one book at 246 cites (good for theology) but not much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lochlin W. Caffey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kittiphon Laengthaisong[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG based on one possible appearance, which isn't recorded in Soccerway. There was some question marks about whether it was actually a different person making the appearance, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 130#Kittiphon Laengthaisong - notability, and nevertheless, one appearance mentioned in one source doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - long standing consensus that passing NFOOTY from one appearance (which in this case is disputed anyway) is insufficient when WP:GNG is so comprehensively failed Spiderone 13:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet GNG or NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, subject doesn't appear to meet WP:NSPORTS, per linked thread, which I started. Per WP:NEXIST, I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of Thai-speaking editors before I make an opinion on whether WP:GNG has been met. Hack (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Thai sources I've found are all match reports. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 4 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) 19:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Airlines Flight 747[edit]

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

Minor aviation incident. Runway excursions are quite common. WP:NOTNEWS ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not notableParadise Chronicle (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; per NOTNEWS Nightfury 13:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no lasting notability Spiderone 13:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The incident caused a major airport to shutdown for 21 hours, which is certainly not run of the mill and has received significant coverage: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 16:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having a second thought, Merge the text into Pegasus Airlines#Incidents and accidents. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 08:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor aviation accident with no injuries or other points to make it more notable than the other hundreds of such events yearly. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NOTNEWS, no lasting effects. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero notability! no consequences or change to regulations, procedures etc. etc. Bog-standard operational hazard incident!!--Petebutt (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A common type of runway excursion incident; no injuries, no deaths, just some inconvenience caused. This is exactly the sort of article that illustrates WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a bad day at the office nothing of note for an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 13:33, 5 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) Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hidayatullah Kheshgi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. References are passing mentions. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Political position may establish notability, but the current references are very brief passing mentions. 1292simon (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a couple more sources that stabilizes the subject's political position. Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf himself has clearly stated in both videos (First video at 2:47, second video shows him sitting near Musharraf from the right for 40 minutes) that Hidayatullah Kheshgi is the incumbent chairman of his political party, APML (All Pakistan Muslim League). Other references regarding the subject's activities with regard to business {for e.g. PIA Board Membership) and politics further deduces the notability of the subject. However, it should also be noted that the article is currently a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNathonson (talk • contribs) 07:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are passing mentions, name drops and don't constitute a good reference. YouTube videos as references are very low quality sources and they are not explicitly about him. They are all insufficiently in-depth, dependent sources and probably unreliable. scope_creep^Talk 08:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply saying the sources are unreliable do not make them unreliable. There is sufficient news coverage from various agencies about this subject. As for the Youtube reference, it is added to give some verbal insight from the political party's founder (President Musharraf) with regard to the subject's political position. Feel free to review the sources yourself. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNathonson (talk • contribs) 09:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite sufficient and reliable coverage on the subject; even though article can be improved to reflect more thoughts in the references.DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor above is WP:SPA who has no understanding of notabilty criteria. Lets examine the references:

[31] Top Musharraf aide says former Pakistan ruler still hospitalized but improving Hidayatullah Kheshgi, APML’s incumbent chairman, did not respond to Arab News' questions about the status of the former military ruler’s health A passing mention. Not independent, or in-depth.
[32]] My wife Sehba and other close familily members, Hidayatullah Kheshgi Passing mention. Not in-depth.
[33] another relative Hidayatullah Kheshgi have claimed co-ownership of them Another passing mention. Not independent, not in-depth.
[another relative Hidayatullah Kheshgi have claimed co-ownership of them] About IMTech (Pvt) Ltd. No mention.
[34] https://vdocuments.mx/annual-report-2007-full-version.html Non-Rs. Not reliable.
[35] PIA board of directors meeting held Minutes of meeting. Not reliable. Non-RS.
[36] 'KARACHI: FCS board reconstituted' An announcement. Dependent source. No mention of the subject.

These are the first eight references and not a single one of them is suitable to establish a BLP. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 21:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging me WP:SPA is unnecessary. I had a long break off Wikipedia because of people like you who WP:BITE newbies, but never again! We'd grow Wikipedia together, and do it beautifully too. We're all learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deolkint (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This discussion should be archived by now. Enough reporting from a diverse range of news agencies, including from the political party's founder who has attested several times that the notable subject will be the party's (APML) incumbent chairman. Article meets appropriate criteria and political position stabilizes notability. Since it's considered as a stub, the article can be refined in the near future. ISI-DeputyDG (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User is a WP:SPA who has made very few edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 00:18, 6 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) 19:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nithya Mammen[edit]

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

non-notable singer. Sources mention her as a singer but are not in-depth coverage of her (s.g. source 7); other sources are non-reliable (e.g. source 14, a database editable by anyone). No evidence of meeting notability criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals MurielMary (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. She got singing assignments in some notable movies, but all halfway reliable sources are actually about the movies and she is only listed as a soundtrack participant. She has some interviews but via Google Translate they appear to be promotional in nature, so she has very little dedicated coverage that is specifically about herself and her career. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a popular singer in Kerala and got many featured news articles in all top news papers from Kerala about her , all the songs she sung so far are superhits and definitely its no TOOSOON. She is a top notch singer in Mollywood now Jehowahyereh (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom also fails WP:NSINGER. VocalIndia (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete subject fails WP:NSINGER. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSINGER and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NSINGER. Not notable for an article at all. BJackJS talk 18:41, 11 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A'tris[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND with no reasonable location to redirect. AllMusic biography does not satisfy the "multiple" part of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" criterion, which is adapted from WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - They seem to meet the "multiple sources" requirement at WP:NBAND; in addition to the brief AllMusic profile, they achieved some reliable newspaper coverage: [37], [38]. There seems to be enough for a basic stub article, though the current text in the article needs to be reduced by a good 90% to facts that have been verified by someone other than their fans. On the other hand, they seem to have been ignored after some early good fortune. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 00:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified above so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If my "Weak Keep" vote above is the reason for all this bureaucracy, just consider it to be Keep and wrap this up already. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 13:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 02:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farihan Alhassan[edit]

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

I considered CSD A7, but I guess being the youngest regional bank manager in Ghana is some sort of WP:SIGNIF claim. Being the head of business banking for a bank (even a major one) is not a notability criterion, and I'm not seeing the depth of sourcing online that would establish a clear GNG pass - I couldn't find anything better than the single source currently in the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree. Not notable. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a reference that supports the claim made and will add more information and references.- Din-nani1 (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Din-nani1 the source you added is an announcement by the bank about one of their products, which has a quote by the subject of the article in it - it does nothing other than confirm that he is indeed head of business banking for Stanbic, it doesn't help build a case for notability, which is what we use to decide whether to keep an article. You need multiple sources which are reliable, secondary, independent of the subject, and which cover him in significant depth. If those can be found, I'll withdraw the nomination, but I couldn't fine them when I looked. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 10:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete. Allow me a day to find other references to support the article. Din-nani1 (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Din-nani1 - I hope you don't mind, but I've refactored your comments slightly - you're only allowed to !vote once, and we usually say either Keep or Delete (or one of the other options), so I've changed your initial comment above, and unbolded your second request. This discussion will run for at least a week, so you have some time - you can come back and tell us if you're able to find better sourcing. Please note what I said above about the type of sourcing we need - if you can find a couple of sources that tick al the boxes the article will likely be kept, but a load of sources that don't meet the requirements won't help. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this subject is notable enough to be on English Wikipedia. References are from reliable sources. It just needs to be edited.Shahadusadik (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No effective references. The two that are there are self-generated profile pages. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 19:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:SIGCOV. This is a mid-level banker, on his way up, who has gotten some local coverage, but not enough to write an article article about him. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. --KartikeyaS (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 02:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Peace Week[edit]

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

A publicity stunt that didn't catch on. 6.5k hits on Google. For reference, the event it was supposed to counter, "Israel[i] Apartheid Week" gets about 120k hits on Google. ImTheIP (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Evidence of notability in cited sources: [39], [40], [41] ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn. Problems have been identified (below) with these sources. ~Kvng (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing earth shattering about this event. Seems about as notable as Amnesty International events or many other hundreds of such things on campus. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the other delete voter. There seems to be nothing special about this event. The sourcing is bad, and there's nothing particularly notability or unique about it as an "event" anyway when compared to the hundreds (or possibly thousands) of similar ones out there in the world. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. There's nothing notable about the event nor has it gained much attention or traction. It might as well just be another random university event - no need to write a specific page on it. SacredSunflower (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does anyone want to make a policy-based argument for deletion? "Bad sourcing" is the closest anyone has come. What's wrong with the sourcing? ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The campaign just doesn't exist anymore. No website and the Facebook group is dormant. Six posts from 2018 and nothing since. The articles you link to are so called "submarines" written by the IPW staff themselves. Advertising campaigns regularly get much more attention than that. ImTheIP (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with ImTheIP. The only reference that might work is the Jerusalem Post article, but it seems to be 100% more about "solutions" to the conflict and various other things related to it. Which don't really have anything to do with the subject of the article, this specific event. The rest is just written by the staff and has various similar (or other) problem that I don't feel the need to go into details about. There's nothing sourcing wise that is both reliable and covers the event in-depth though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImTheIP, these are otherwise reliable sources right? What evidence you're relying on for your "submarine" assessment? The fact that it was reported on for only one year is not a reason to delete. It does not need to be earth-shattering to meet our notability requirements. ~Kvng (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The op-ed in Jerusalem Post is written by Natalie Menaged who is the director of education of the Hasbara Fellowships - the organization that hosted Israel Peace Week. Your other sources is Arutz Sheva which is an Israeli right-wing rag and Mondoweiss which is a pro-Palestinian blog. I'm sorry, but the sources are very weak and 6k Google hits speak for themselves. Red Bull's advertising campaigns regularly gets ten times as much coverage. ImTheIP (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged I'll just echo what ImTheIP said. An op-ed by the director of an organization that hosted Israel Peace Week is not a reliable source. Arutz Sheva is pretty sketch also due to them clearly lacking neutrality on the subject. Which I'd say the same for if this was on the other side of the political spectrum BTW. That said, the article isn't in-depth anyway. So, it's kind of a moot point. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles says this is an annual event but it does not seem to be ongoing and was apparently short-lived in duration. It could possibly be worth a redirect but I'm not sure to where. Do we have a general article about the conflict on campuses? Spudlace (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hasbara Fellowships. Per Spudlace above. The Peace Week may be notable but the article is brief and this content and references would be very welcome additions to Fellowships articles in a selective merger. As an aside, the fact that another event gets more coverage doesn't say a lot about this one. It's how the article is excessively framed but we needn't frame the AfD in the same manner. gidonb (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing significant and the sources are not independent. --KartikeyaS (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nihal Sadiq[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:FILMMAKER or WP:MUSICBIO. Has worked with some notable professionals, but a WP:BEFORE search turns up only passing mentions in reliable sources, with no significant coverage. WP:TOOSOON at best. Captain Calm (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as either a filmmaker or a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just seems like one of a million names at the end of movie we all skip over, nothing notable about that. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no major credits or coverage Spiderone 13:50, 10 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Accueil State College[edit]

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

I did a PROD on this due to it's lack of nobility that unfortunately was removed because "secondary schools." When they are not inherently notable per NORG and SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Something the person who removed the PROD seemed to have ignored. So, here we are. What it comes down to is that this lacks the multiple in-depth reliable sources it would need to pass either the general notability guidelines or the ones for organizations. Just to repeat, secondary schools are not inherently notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Therefore, the discussion should be in relation to the notability guidelines and the quality of sourcing (or lack thereof). Adamant1 (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not pass GNG or NORG. BEFORE showed only sparse routine run of the mill local coverage, nothing that establishes notability. The single reference in the article does not meet WP:IS or WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 22:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is an allegation that it's the biggest (out of about 56) secondary schools in that country. Can we find any evidence? Bearian (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was it wouldn't be automatically notable and would still need multiple in-depth reliable sources to pass the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "SSS Bon Accueil" was the magic search term: [42] [43] ([44] just a mention but notes it's a top school) [45] [46] [47] SportingFlyer T·C 14:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what happened to all that systemic bias when it comes to sourcing that keep voters are always going off about. It's almost like it's not a thing and the people who brought it up where just handwaving. Weird. <---(in case anyone feels like crying foul I'm (mostly) just being sarcastic about it). --Adamant1 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SportingFlyer's sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sourcing provided by SportingFlyer is actually pretty bad. For instance, one of the stories is about them getting a computer room. Which is pretty muh. One source doesn't even mention them at all. Two are on the same thing, some students taking issue with one of their faculty members leavening. One is about a few students doing a writing group. Another is on the starting a school newspaper. All of those are extremely trivial run of the mill things that every schools does. It's also worth mentioning that four of the stories are from the same outlet. Not that I expect the people who have voted keep so far to care, but hopefully other people who contribute to this actually look at the sources, consider if they actually meet the notability guidelines, and put the due diligence into this that's required. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:29, 10 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Nordmark[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new article curation. No indication of wp:notability. No wp:GNG type sources; all were database type sources or brief mentions except there is one in-depth review of one of his works. Also nothing under SNG criteria.— Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to sign on October 20th, 2020 when I nominated it. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD was malformed. The 7-day clock should run from the time of the relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV. BLP articles should strictly follow sourcing requirements in guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 10:50, 6 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 any editor wishes this restored to draft space please let me know Fenix down (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Bangalore A Division[edit]

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

PROD removed, creator made it clear there is no other information on the internet! Which in essence is a clear violation of WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/draftify - since even the article creator has admitted that this is original research, this should not be in the main space at all; since this is not a national competition, it is not inherently notable and should be required to meet WP:GNG Spiderone 11:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Giant Snowman 11:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify - Not notable, can't find any reference for the subject, but it's a developing article, maybe it should be moved to draft Lynndonald (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG as mentioned above. Not all divisions in sports are notable inherently. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/userify: The (silent) poor non-admin was bad (see history). I don't care for silent re-opening without relisting either. Page creator should have re-alised sourcing was insufficient for wikimedia mainspace and as hasn't should be strongly recommended to create articles in draft and send articles via AfC. There is nothing in this article that couldn't be in Bangalore A Division and would suggest that article is improved first with a list of current teams and a noting of teams that were previously in the division that are now not in it. There is really no need for a proliferation of sub-pages of here. Permit userfy if page creator needs it to improve Bangalore A Divisio but there's no point in a merge or a redirect being left here. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:12, 11 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Gillies[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is redirect to Savoy Hotel, but I think it is clearer to delete. Boleyn (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable chef.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and also especially for lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some searching turned up quite a bit of coverage: [48][49][50][51][52][53][54]. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for further analysis of sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep would seem to be notable based on television appearances, but article is scantly sourced. Could benefit from an infobox, further citations and much more meat to substantiate notability. Pun intended, he's a chef after all. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG – see Laughing all the way to the bank for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manoel Batista Chaves Filho[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, mayor of small town, so doesn't meet WP:NPOL either. PROD was contested. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Local politician, death widely reported by Brazilian media. --Pesqara (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I considered this. WP:NPOL mentions "major" local politicians, but some obituary coverage is routine. Generally, if someone wasn't notable in life I don't find that coverage of their passing is likely to tip the scales. VQuakr (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A two-term mayor of a town of 18,000, only got some coverage with his unfortunate passing but fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 14:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local politicians rarely if ever meet the threshold of notability. In this case he fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Leveille[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It takes some effort to wade through this ref-bombed article, but at the end it amounts to not much as all. I am sure that she is a very competent business leader but there is nothing here that speaks to notability. Looks like yet another paid for bio. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the premise of notability here is being the CEO of AgriLedger as the lead sentence suggests then I don't think that holds water. AgriLedger doesn't appear to be a notable company. And if it was, we would have an article about it and redirect Leveille to it. The company appears to have at most 15 employees; no accounts have been filed for 2019 but as of November 2018 it was loss-making; Leveille has recently quietly resigned as a director according to the Companies House filing leaving her husband at the reins. With startups we must look at the enduring impact rather than the PR noise they generate.

I think notability hinges instead on her being a prolific public speaker at blockchain events, or could she meet WP:ANYBIO by being a finalist for an expanding list of awards. The events she has spoken at regurgitate a short bio presumably provided by Leveille, so I don't think that constitutes in depth or independent coverage. None of the awards are notable, and in other types of awards Wikipedia gives weight to winning an award rather than for being nominated for it.

Or does she meet WP:BASIC? The cryptocurryclub and fairfood references provide in-depth coverage but are interviews, which we don't consider to be independent. The only other reference providing in-depth coverage is fintechfiends and that is a blog site that profiles people working in fintech, presumably for a fee.

Her involvement in the ACChain debacle was a notable omission from the biography, which I have since remedied, but it gave me the impression that this article was a PR effort. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have enough citations provided about her in industry-related sources, passes the smell test in my mind. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails to satisfy basic inclusion requirements, I can’t see in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources here. Celestina007 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Saguenay, Quebec[edit]

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

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

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscraperpage and Emporis do not constitute significant coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Saguenay' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
No high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft
The whole article is currently a violation of WP:NOTMIRROR as it is a copy and paste from Skyscraperpage
The city is only the fifth largest in Quebec and isn't the capital so no reason for an article to exist on its not-very-tall buildings

Similar AfDs for reference: Bradenton and Macon

Spiderone 08:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - was previously up for AfD as part of a massive grouping and kept Spiderone 08:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Well, this is going to be another case of a do-over of a mass delete to get rid of a lot of make-work one by one instead of all at once. The problem is the same: a list of run-of-the-mill buildings, none of which are particularly tall. And it needs to be said that this article would need to be constantly updated from skyscraperpage.com (the only source) every time a new building goes up in this city—assuming that they even are a reliable source, as I would not be surprised to learn that they are crowd-sourced too. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't seem notable as a subject outside of a single website, which it seems to be a mirror of, and Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, there is nothing there that can assist in navigation. // Timothy :: talk 14:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus has shifted to 'delete' since the last relist, and while !votes of both opinions are rather lacking in detail, the stronger argument is that GNG is not met. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Singh (civil servant)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Coverage like [55] seems to be mainly about programmes with which he has been involved, and not about him personally. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure vanity article, with no encyclopaedic value. I see absolutely nothing to suggest WP:BIO notability. The sources do at first look plentiful, but they are just passing mentions, some are identical, and one returns a 'page not found'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an archive link for the "not found page". You may check it now. I also removed a reference where it was just a passing mention.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find the subject notable enough for Wikipedia, as the subject has held various important and top bureaucratic positions in the government and is also currently serving as Principal Secretary of the Bodoland Territorial Council on behalf of the Governor of Assam [56]. His work and his implementation of govt programs were recognized, as covered in media articles [57][58][59][60]. So, I tend to keep.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure nobody expects anything less from the article creator. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be enough WP:RS/WP:IS to convince me the subject passes WP:GNG. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to pass WP:GNG--Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The references are just routine announcements or not primarily about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the provided sources are press releases which give just passing mentions or at best provide a quotations from the subject. Unsure if G Plus, East Mojo or South Asia Views are even reliable sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. Non-elected civil servants do not meet WP:NPOL and sources wouldn't support even if it was a valid criteria. WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements. // Timothy :: talk 10:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for want of WP:SIGCOV and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Other than the India Today, there are no reliable sources; we require several for "significant coverage," which is lacking. While he's an honorable civil servant, he fails for automatic inclusion. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage with no nothing significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV. --KartikeyaS (talk) 21:37, 12 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Martin Moen[edit]

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

163 citations in Google Scholar; 8 library holdings according to Worldcat Identities. In other words, WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:ACADEMIC. His political career was a brief stint as one of the 37 members of the municipal council of Øvre Eiker, a small municipality in Norway. (Note that the Norwegian Wikipedia edition has much lower notability standards for academics than WP:ACADEMIC here and traditionally accepted anyone with a PhD and sometimes even doctoral students.) Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that there is not sufficient impact for most of the WP:NPROF criteria, but what about this as evidence of meeting WP:NPROF#C7? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Moen seems to be just above the bar for WP:NPROF#C7, and "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." But I'm open to changing my mind here. Jmill1806 (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources on the article that indicate this person is notable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:33, 5 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 I–V–vi–IV progression. And the suggestion of a category sounds like a great idea. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs containing the I–V–vi–IV progression[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. I don't see any such list "in the wild" (at least in reputable places). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cruft at its worst. It's just a list of song, with no context of why this is important. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Cruft, original research and sources are only available via a paywall. Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? This is a pretty bizarre list. ~~Delete~~. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Going back to Delete. Sorry for constantly changing my mind, but this is a tough one. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the vvi progression (or what have you) article, mention a few songs there. A list of things that the average joe wouldn't understand. Oaktree b (talk)
- Which page is this, out of curiosity? Foxnpichu (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I–V–vi–IV progression and also '50s progression. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Very well. I suppose I will also change my !vote to ~~Merge~~ inline with what you said. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NLIST. Too much WP:OR / unsourced material here for a good merge and it would lack the information about why this is significant per Lugnuts. But if someone really wanted to work on it, they should ask that it be drafted to their userspace. // Timothy :: talk 14:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a simple Draft namescape work? Foxnpichu (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably not, there's no real significance in having such a list, or valid reason for why it would be useful. Aza24 (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a trivial and ridiculous list, all OR. Aza24 (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I myself have been a big contributor to this list, but I may now consider not having this list. Merge with main article, shorten the list, and listen to the actual songs (as I do) to determine whether these contain the progression. On another note, I'd like to request a copy of the article for personal purposes should it be deleted. Caehlla (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So some people say Delete, and some say Merge? Honestly, I’d be fine with either, really. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a category, like "Category:Songs containing the I–V-vi-IV progression", or something along those lines.
Merge back into I–V–vi–IV progression which is not that long and can handle the list. I have no bone in this debate, but I find many of the delete calls to be ill-formed. Adding list items to a stand-alone list is not original research so long as it's verifiable by persons who are familiar with the topic, not every item needs a reference. Stand-alone lists must pass GNG, though, and this list does not pass GNG, so that's a plus for deletion. However, there is a perfectly valid redirect target and per deletion nomination standards, that should have been the first option. Sources hidden behind a paywall is completely irrelevant, I'm not sure why anyone would mention that as a reason for deletion. A list is allowed to be "bizarre" for someone who is not familiar with the topic. Merging it back into the progression article would make it pretty obvious why they are important to the topic, and calling it trivial and ridiculous is a bit over the top, we have plenty of trivial lists on Wikipedia (but this list isn't trivial, there is an article on the progression and then a list of songs that use that progression, not trivial, not ridiculous). These are all horrible argument for deletion. I think the article should be merged as it is a valid target and that's what policy says we should do in this circumstance. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE - when I looked at the title, I thought of the choruses to "Don't Stop Believin'" and "Torn", neither of which are in the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, just to cite policy WP:BEFORE: "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article" there couldn't be more clear targets for merging, in line with MOS:TIMELINE. In case this is ignored and the article is deleted, I would recommend to anyone who cares for the lists to help finish adding all the songs to [[Category:Songs containing the I–V-vi-IV progression]] and start another for the other article. Even if this(these) article(s) is(are) deleted, there is no policy that says that notable items with references cannot be added into a shorter list in the parent articles, though there would be no redirect and history would be erased. From my POV they could not be more relevant to the parent articles, providing examples of the music discussed there. Also, the list failing comprehensiveness is certainly not a reason to delete and indiscriminate is open for debate, given they are stand alone lists with parent articles. Footlessmouse (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above discussion, enough said. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE list with nothing significant to have an indepedent article. --KartikeyaS (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eldwen Wang[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMUSICIAN and lacks the significant coverage required by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this fails NMUSIC by a mile and is nothing more than spam. Praxidicae (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely agree with TheSandDoctor Spiderone 15:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and blatantly promotional. –Austronesier (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's released songs, nothing to show where or how high they've charted. Anyone can record music these days and post it online, we need more than this. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushal Kapoor[edit]

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

No significant roles. Only cameos and non-significant roles so far. Fails WP:NACTOR and also WP:RS Palmsandbeaches (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't merit its own page. Balle010 (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of very minor roles does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NACTOR. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 10:09, 9 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. Seems to be a bit of a stretch to redirect it, but a redir can be recreated if desired. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarika Kapoor[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS Palmsandbeaches (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. Balle010 (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dance Dance (film). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. I couldn't find adequate references upon searching. Westminster88 (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect was a good option but I don't think it would help here. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Vikram Vincent 08:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete no redirect needed. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gun serial number[edit]

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

Unsourced article does not meet WP:GNG and is not an encyclopedic topic WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It is mentioned in other topics, but there is no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. There is no encyclopedic content in the article that would improve another article for merge. // Timothy :: talk 02:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability and also WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Balle010 (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTEVERYTHING is an absurd reason to delete because you can say that about literally everything. What it amounts to is Wikipedia:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC – an argument to avoid. The topic is, of course, notable and so easy to improve. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Andrew Davidson: You have a wonderful imagination, but marking a gun with a number is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia policy - in this case WP:WWIN and guidelines - in this case WP:N both outrank your essay WP:ATA. Nice use of hyperbole though. // Timothy :: talk 12:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw this on NPP, and would have considered draft-ifying if it wasn't touched for another day. It's unsourced, but I would be surprised if there weren't sources available. Unfortunately a simple Google search just gives results that assert that this is a thing, not results that say anything about gun serial numbers. power~enwiki (π, ν) 10:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Now a clear Keep. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets GNG, although in fairness, this is chiefly a specialty field in criminology. I’ve added some scholarly works including a few patents to a Further reading section, as well as some inline cites. I’ve also found:
- Farnam, John (2019-12-01). "Firearms Serialization And Bureaucratic Momentum". AmmoLand.com. Retrieved 2020-11-04.
- Amato, Ivan (2015-05-11). "Scientists develop a technique to find serial numbers that have been filed off". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2020-11-04.
- "Crystal pattern mapping can recover obliterated serial numbers in metals". phys.org. Retrieved 2020-11-04.
- Birnbaum, Emily (2018-08-04). "Five things to know about 3D printed guns". TheHill. Retrieved 2020-11-04.
- "'Ghost Gun' Ban Now Rhode Island Law". Cranston, RI Patch. 2020-06-23. Retrieved 2020-11-04.
- Brandi Hitt (January 30, 2020). "'Ghost guns' investigation: Law enforcement seeing unserialized firearms on daily basis in SoCal". ABC7 Los Angeles. Retrieved 2020-11-04.
- amNewYork. "'Clear and present danger': New York senators pen legislation to outlaw 'ghost guns' and partial receivers". amNewYork. Retrieved 2020-11-04.
- Webb, Patterson Belknap; S, Tyler LLP-Harry; ick; Reich, Elena Steiger. "Second Circuit Affirms Sentencing Enhancement for Altered Serial Number on a Gun, Despite Legible Serial Numbers On Other Parts of the Firearm". www.lexology.com. Retrieved 2020-11-04.
- Suciu, Peter (2020-07-07). "The Amazing History of Gun Control in the America". The National Interest. Retrieved 2020-11-04.
- Carter, Gregg Lee (2012-05-04). Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law, 2nd Edition [3 volumes]: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-38671-8.
- Girard, James E.; Girard, James (2006). Criminalistics: Forensic Science and Crime. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 978-0-7637-3529-6.
- Small Arms and Light Weapons: U.S. Policy and Views. DIANE Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4289-6715-1.
certainly there are more. Glee^anon 12:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominating a stub article four hours and 20 minutes after it was created for an obviously valid topic is ridiculous. The article has now been greatly expanded, and ample references found. There are laws regulating this, its a very common thing, a lot of people go to jail for removing serial numbers, not sure how this wouldn't be seen as obviously suitable for an article in this encyclopedia. Dream Focus 17:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an obviously important topic. We should have an article on everything. Adequate references prove importance of topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: To name just two of Gleeanon409's sources, the Washington Post and Criminalistics references are solid. Clearly notable topic. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability and importance are self-evident. Elms^super 04:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice for future complete overhaul to balance the current US centrism, sources exist. Cavalryman (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by User:Gleeanon409, User:Toughpigs. User:Graeme Bartlett and User:Dream Focus. Article and sourcing is not what it was when nominated for deletion. WP:HEY. I agree with User:Cavalryman that article should be expanded and tagged to reflect a world view. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Toughpigs Graeme Bartlett Dream Focus. Good work Gleeanon409 — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with prejudice This topic clearly belongs on Wikipedia. I just came to Wikipedia to look this up and was very annoyed to see the AfD tag. If you weren't happy with the article, you should have started by trying to improve it (see WP:Improve the junk). When you can't find references to support it, that's when you should be making a nomination to delete. In this case however, there are clearly plenty of references, so you've earned yourself a WP:WHACK! for making this nomination; hopefully you'll learn to do better in the future! -NorsemanII (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument to redirect is undermined by the absence of this term in the target article Vanamonde (Talk) 20:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bunbury Wildlife Park[edit]

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

I can find the usual deluge of TripAdvisor items, but nothing more susbstantial that would amount to solid independent coverage. It's quite possible that something may be hiding among all these listings, but I couldn't spot it . It seems that zoos often only get substantial coverage when there's some kind of scandal or blow-up (so kudos to Bunbury's for not generating news) but it makes it hard to present independent sourcing... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability. Balle010 (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Pahiy (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Bunbury, Western Australia - users are required to consider alternatives to deletion and there is no indication that a redirect to the suburb name is inappropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Independent Journal Review. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Skatell[edit]

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

While the Independent Journal Review appears plenty notable, Skatell doesn't appear to have the same level of independent notability. Any reliable source coverage I found online was tied to IJR. Sam Walton (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree - can some of this information move to that article? Balle010 (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Independent Journal Review. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with redirect Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 4 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.