< November 05	November 07 >

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gaelic footballers who died during their careers[edit]

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

Delete: I don't think this is a defining characteristic of these people, actually it has just one entry. Their death is not what they are known for. ww2censor (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ww2censor (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and other lists of athletes who died during their careers (see Sportspeople who died during their careers, which has about 6 more that should go under the Afd knife). Those who died from sports-related injuries are notable (e.g. Ray Chapman). Lots of people die before they retire; there's nothing special about that. Politicians who drop dead from stress, overwork, etc. aren't notable for that reason alone; those who are assassinated are. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing special about this list, people die, and therefore there's zero reason to have it. Unless it was specifically about people who died sports-related injuries, but that doesn't seem to be what this is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the context of there being issues with many of the the others at sportspeople who died during their careers.

I started it (without much thought) based on the existence of lists like American footballers and their accidental electrocutions, baseball players and their dune buggy crashes, Australian rules footballers falling in Las Vegas, basketball players and their personal watercraft accidents, assocation footballers and their encephalitis following an earthquake in Seram Island and the ice hockey players being hit by a snow grooming machine, then buried... I see upon further examination of these lists (or, rather, the causes of death - which I initially overlooked) that they seem to be excessive and unnecessary. What does the nominator mean when they say "actually it has just one entry"? --Gaois (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: at the time of the nomination there appeared to be just one entry but I may have missed the table containing 4 entries far down the page. No matter how many entries there are this is not a defining characteristic of these people. ww2censor (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection at all to deleting these lists. Like I said I just noticed the missing sport and didn't think much of it at the time. I was a bit tired and was just working from what already existed. Three of the six sources relate to an injury while playing (the "sports-related injuries" mentioned above) but since they are for one entry there is no need for a separate list. --Gaois (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are considering this article for deletion, there are a lot more lists like this included at Sportspeople who died during their careers that don't seem notable unless the athlete died as a result of playing a sport. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably those will go to AfD at some point also. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already suggested this. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Plenty of sportspeople have their careers cut short for a host of reasons. Nigej (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --KartikeyaS (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meru International School, Hyderabad[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP- lacks coverage outside of local press. 1292simon (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the coverage seems to be from local sources and about trivial topics. None of it passes either WP:NORG or WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is entirely run-of-the-mill Spiderone 20:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:TOOSOON. It's only two years old. Any school can call itself "international"; it's a generic brand like "K... fried chicken", "X cola". or "aspirin". It does not appear to have the International Baccalaureate programme. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Fails WP:GNG. --KartikeyaS (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Wet Dream on Elm Street[edit]

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

~~No evidence of mainstream notability. The only independent reference (www.videotramp.com) is a review site for porn. 1292simon (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn due to improvements by Right Cite. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a work with insuffiicent 3rd party coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, identified in The 10 Best Porn Films Since 2010, and covered in Sex and Sexuality in Modern Screen Remakes (2019), Horror Film: A Critical Introduction (2018), Torture Porn: Popular Horror after Saw (2013). Right cite (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article improved, removed all prior sources used in the article when originally nominated for deletion, (see improved version of the article after the research). Thank you for taking another look, Right cite (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:HEY Donaldd23 (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Right cite's research. No issue with nom, notability was not clear at the time. StarM 14:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:HEY. No longer the same article as was nominated. /Julle (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Right cite's work. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Right cite's additions. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Right cite's research. --KartikeyaS (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Right cite's expansion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lanre Arogundade[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy any of the 4 criterion listed at WP:JOURNALIST. He appears to be a politician also but was a mere candidate & per WP:NPOL, which states; Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, that doesn’t satisfy WP:NPOL. In all & after a before search I don’t see any notability criterion satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree with Celestina007's analysis. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 22:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to earn him guaranteed inclusion rights just because he exists, but the sourcing is not solid enough to get him over GNG in lieu of having to have a real notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --KartikeyaS (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ben 10: Alien Force#Video games. Anyone wishing to merge content may do so from the history. The participation is somewhat low, but this is the sort of article that could be boldly redirected, so I'm comfortable closing it. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben 10 Triple Pack[edit]

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

This article is about a game bundle, not a game, and all the bundled games have their own articles. I'm not sure how this game bundle is supposed to be even remotely notable or there to be any coverage apart from listings on e-commerce websites. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 19:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 19:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Snowballgamers —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ben 10: Alien Force#Video games. It can at least be mentioned there, but is certainly non-notable for its own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:28, 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Šubrtová[edit]

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

PROD removed without a reason being provided. Concern was a BLP with no assertion or evidence of meeting WP:GNG

I can see no evidence that she can pass WP:NFOOTY or GNG. Sources added recently are Facebook and Twitter which are not WP:RS. I would suggest delete or draftify. Spiderone 19:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just add ((more citations needed)) insted of deleting. ‎Rest ‎in pieces 17:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the subject is not notable, it should either be in the draft space or deleted until such time that she meets the notability criteria for footballers Spiderone 17:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a professional league player and not an international player. Geschichte (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. --KartikeyaS (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Bolton Wanderers F.C. players (1–24 appearances). Fenix down (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mickaël Kapriélian[edit]

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

Footballer who played less than 1 game in a fully professional league. Other than that he played on the French tiers 3, 4, 5 and 6. Possible to redirect to 1999–2000 Bolton Wanderers F.C. season. Geschichte (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bolton Wanderers F.C. players (1–24 appearances), where he is already mentioned. Giant Snowman 19:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above and nom Spiderone 12:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Human genetic clustering[edit]

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

This page is a confused, unreadable mess of original synthesis that does not cover the actual topic. It does not accurately reflect the body of research on genetic clustering and needs to be blown up and rewritten.

Human genetic clustering is, roughly speaking, an approach that uses cluster analysis to study patterns in genetic data; it is a set of methods to characterize populations within studies. The problem is that this article is (and always has been) solely about the clusters themselves with close to no text dedicated to explaining how clusters are determined or what the actual process is. Virtually every modern study of human population genetics includes some type of cluster analysis, and they will always find clusters, leading us to the current coat-racked article revolving around group differences, race, ethnicity, and genetics. The article's current structure (to talk about clusters rather than the clustering algorithms, their applications, and interpretations/results) is designed to be a battlefield of POV-pushing, which we see with its contentious edit history and frequent visits from socks and trolls. Its original creator was banned long ago for being a sockpuppet account of a user who edit-warred on race-related articles like race and intelligence so I believe this article was not created in good faith or with good understanding of the topic.

There is a good article to be written on the topic as it relates to algorithms, inference, and major findings related to population histories, but there is no version of the existing article that would make a good base for that. In summary:

This article does not actually cover the topic it claims to. Virtually none of the text is dedicated to clustering, and almost all of it is dedicated to discussions of group similarities/differences or arguments about race and genetics
It is basically unreadable, consisting of duelling blocks of quotes that leaves readers with less understanding of the topic.
It reads like an argumentative essay and is original synthesis. Citing (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is one of a cluster of articles that have been progressively lengthened by the thorny debates over race and genetics. That debate is of social and (to a lesser degree) scientific significance and ought to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia, and its intersection with a series of studies of human genetic clustering led to enormous amounts of coverage in both scientific and mainstream news RS. The overlap between genetic clustering and race spawned enough discussion to spawn a Social Sciences Research Council forum, and a prominent edited volume on the issue, so it deserves coverage on Wikipedia.

I agree with Citing that there is much unworkable material here, but disagree that blowing up the article is the best solution. My suggestions:

Shrink and merge the "Analysis of human genetic variation" material into human genetic variation. Some of that material is more clearly shown here, so it could replace some of the chaos over there. The two-paragraph Edwards vs. interlocutors back and forth could be cut entirely or drastically trimmed.
I'm not sure where or whether there is a home for "Blood polymorphism study," but it isn't here. A brief summary could be added to Luigi Cavalli-Sforza
The early part of "Genetic cluster studies" should be spun upwards into a description of genetic clustering algorithms and methods. The latter half should remain here as a list of major studies. Some cleaning throughout.
Rosenberg's "Genetic Structure of Human Populations," which has over 2900 Google scholar citations, its own critical literature, and numerous news media articles about it probably deserves its own article: Genetic Structure of Human Populations (scientific article) that should absorb some of the legitimate back and forth surrounding it. Summarize the article briefly here, since its one of the oldest and smallest global cluster studies.
Blow up and rewrite "Controversy of genetic clustering and associations with race" as "Genetic clustering and race": Much of this doesn't belong here, but in Race and genetics; and much of that is too lengthy, wordy, and back-and-forth-y for an encyclopedia article. Still this is a substantial controversy that is significant for human genetic clustering.

Fundamentally, this is an article where various editors have tried to correct structural flaws by adding new material for too long. I'm not sure who can take on the rewrites involved, but I do think there is valuable material here, much of it in coherent blocks.--Carwil (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resource: Also, if someone wants to blow up the overall structure and needs a map to lay out the issues involved, they should consider this source. (I'd be happy to climb the paywall and share a PDF.): Novembre, John; Ramachandran, Sohini (2011). "Perspectives on human population structure at the cusp of the sequencing era". Annual review of genomics and human genetics. 12: 245–274.--Carwil (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input @Carwil:. I agree largely with the points you've mentioned, but my problem is that there are simply too many topics and results being confused with one another in this article to be useful to work with. Any rewrite would have to start from scratch, and I think this is a consequence of how it was framed by its original author -- from the opening sentence onwards, the description of the topic is incorrect or misleading (i.e. that there are distinct a priori clusters of people and scientists are trying to find out who they are and what their genetics are). At no point is there an explanation of what genetic clustering is. Ideally this article should start with describing what the methods of clustering in human genetics are and go from there and (imo) the article would have to be totally scrubbed for that.

As to your specific points:

"Analysis of human genetic variation" and FST are related to the clustering process (in that after clusters are generated you may be interested in the FST/variation between/within them) but not central to it.
Agreed that this needs to be removed. This works much better at the Cavallie-Sforza page, if anywhere.
I think having methods described is critical, but a list of major studies would probably not help. Almost every modern genetics study has some cluster analysis so this would be unworkable (What counts as a major study? What unique population clusters are worth including? How do we write about them? You can see where this is going....). I have noticed a lot of new articles formed as Genetic history of X so maybe linking to a list of those in a "See also" section would be more helpful instead.
Agreed that the Rosenberg study has ben given too much weight.
I think in the context of a rewritten article this could be reduced considerably to a section on "relation to race and ethnicity", which would be a much clearer and more scientific framing

Even if the material in this article is useful enough to be included elsewhere and the article is kept, I think WP:TNT (stubbify and expand from there) is the only way forward for it to be a scientifically accurate and encyclopedic.Citing (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to respond to everything but re 3: there has been a limited pool of large sample-size, global clustering studies which then get re-cited. I agree that there's a ton of cluster analysis in regional population histories.

I may want to back up a virtual moving truck to merge out some of this material before any top-to-bottom rewrite.--Carwil (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the discussion above has identified the issues well enough; the question is what to do about them, and deletion seems the simplest course of action. The basic framing of the current article is unhelpful, and the amount of refactoring necessary to save any of the current material is not, I think, worth the trouble. XOR'easter (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You'd have to be a fool to ignore that groups of people in the world look similar. That pre-DNA concept identified (often poorly) what is objectively and measurably true and this page explains these measurements. All the discussion of group similarities due to genetics how trends and the groupings back it up. It could certainly be cleaned up, but deletion is a last resort. The POV pushing types need to kept in check by citing scientific papers, but deleting the whole article would ALSO be giving in to POV-pushing trolls. Literally censorship of facts that don't align with their political stances. Science and facts are above that. 97.122.84.35 (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote has almost nothing to do with the article, or with the arguments for deletion. Further, the euphemistic avoidance of the word race while defending the validity of it as a "pre-DNA concept" tips the hand that this comment is itself "pushing" a political stance. Biological racialism is pseudoscience, and if this article is, as you (unintentionally) suggest, a coat-rack for a fringe position, it should be deleted. It is not enough to merely "cite scientific papers" willy-nilly. We need to summarize what WP:MEDRS papers say with a strong preference for WP:IS about the entire topic. Individual studies are WP:PRIMARY, and citing arbitrarily selected examples would be WP:OR. Opposing supposed "censorship" is not a valid argument for the inclusion of badly-sourced or cherry-picked pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, none of this addresses the main points I've made, which are that the article is (and always has been) filled with original research and that it does not accurately cover the topic and leaves readers with a poorer understanding.Citing (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above Grayfell (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominator stated the case completely. // Timothy :: talk 15:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a non-viable article on a potentially viable topic. Genetic clustering is a tricky subject, and any article about it would need to reflect sources actually discussing clustering, rather than genetic variation more generally. Indeed it's quite possible that the distinction between genetic clustering and genetic variation is too subtle for Wikipedia, and both topics are best treated at Human genetic variation. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rochelle Kuhar[edit]

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

PROD was initially placed with Footballer who has never played in a professional league.

PROD removed with comment According to its article, this is the top-level national league. By insisting that it is not "professional", you are making the sexist argument that women can never be notable in this sport.

Taken to AfD but procedural keep as was bundled with another footballer with which the only thing they had in common was being Australian female footballers with 9 appearances.

This article is required to meet WP:GNG but I just can't find much in the way of coverage. A WP:BEFORE search led to this [1] but it's not sufficient. A lot of the coverage online is for an American restaurant owner with the exact same name. Spiderone 18:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:46, 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) 20:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Abdul-Jabbar[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is he the captain of Al Quwa or assistant coach for Al Sinaat? He can't be both! Spiderone 18:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all relevant criteria both as a footballer and assistant manager Spiderone 07:36, 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 no consensus. An unfortunate outcome, but the only possible one, given keep !votes that are not based in policy, but otherwise a lack of engagement. No prejudice toward speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo[edit]

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". It was deprodded by User:Atlantic306 with a comment "a valid split from the main article or suggest merge and redirect to University of Colombo". Sadly, this article has no reliably referenced content to merge, so if prod was disputed, time to discuss a simple deletion, unless anyone can find references to suggest this sub-university division is actually independently notable? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to vote yet but imo it doesn't have to have independent referencing to be remerged to the main article providing that article's notability is already established, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current sourcing is pretty weak but if it is genuinely “the second oldest medical school in South Asia” and “the topmost medical faculty in the country” there must be more sources. Mccapra (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So far I’ve found 1, 2 and 3 plus plenty of colonial period snippets. Mccapra (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t search in Tamil or Sinhalese.Mccapra (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Thanks. The first paper and the second papers are identical. Further, this is hardly in-depth about the subject, the article mentions like facts about this school in that many sentences. That is very borderline if we try to stretch it to GNG/NORG requirements' for in-depth coverage. Seriously, I can quote all the relevant content here: "The history of undergraduate medical education in Sri Lanka dates back to 1870, when the Colombo Medical School was founded... [subsequently] the Faculty of Medicine became part of the University of Colombo... In the mid-1980s, the Colombo Medical Faculty felt the need to change its traditional curriculum." That's it. Please let me know if I missed anything, but as far as I can tell, those are all the mentions of this institution in that source. It is mentioned briefly and in passing in the wider context (the history of medical education in Sri Lanka). The third reference is simply a paper published by researchers from that school, and it doesn't discuss the institution, it just mentions it as part of their affiliation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, but most of the article needs to be removed or rewritten. Natureium (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Natureium Rajuiu (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing admin. Most keep votes here are just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE without providing any rationale, and the sources found are very weak (one is a two-sentence mention in passing and the other is irrelevant). NOTAVOTE, etc... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; !votes saying 'just notable' without more reasoning do not carry much weight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but the sourcing just isn't there to pass WP:GNG or any other guideline. Everything is trivial or not really about the subject of the article in any meaningful way, if at all. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:10, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Wood at Flower Hill[edit]

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

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

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

It's a neighborhood that fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. No historic, social, economic, or architectural importance established. A WP:BEFORE check found no significant coverage. Schazjmd (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Loucks was one of the key figures in Rolling Wood's development. Loucks (along with his father) were major realtors and developers on Long Island during this time, and did work in places like Brookville New York, Syosset, New York, and Roslyn Estates, New York.
Please keep in mind that this article is very new. It was started roughly 24 hours ago (as of the time I am posting this). I am expanding it and will continue to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LINYPerson615 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The land that this subdivision sits on was once owned by Edmund A. Guggenheim. He was a prominent copper executive in a prominent family that earned their fortune through the mining industry; the family was a rival of the Rockefeller family, financially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LINYperson615 (talk • contribs)
Delete all—they're not notable. (I've added two other articles to this nomination that are substantially the same as this one.) Imzadi 1979 → 22:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Flower Hill Estates is VERY notable. One of the most significant developers on Long Island constructed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LINYperson615 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know why I didn't think of doing it the first time - but I just merged the information in all 3 articles with the main article on the village; I think that it perhaps makes more sense (plus everything would be much more organized that way). I agree, and I apologize for my rather harsh tone and my stubbornness. Please delete these articles, as they are obsolete (and because the data has been moved). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LINYperson615 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you didn't merge them, as the content from the individual articles wasn't added to the main article; you just listed them as "notable subdivisions". Did you notice that several subdivisions are already mentioned in prose, in the Flower_Hill,_New_York#Post-WWII_years_and_suburbanization_(mid-to-late_20th_Century) section? That would be the place to capture any important information about the various developments. Schazjmd (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, you've moved content now too. Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 30 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 18:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Subdivisions are virtually never notable and this is no exception. Reywas92^Talk 19:03, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Apollo (toy)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Given the total lack of references, there is no content to merge and anyway there is no valid merge/redirect target I see. The PROD was removed with no valid rationale despite my request to provide one (per best practices) by a habitual deprodder, so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's easy to find sources covering this toy line such as The Encyclopedia of Marx Action Figures and Action Figures: From Action Man to Zelda. Our policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." And WP:NEXIST: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, given that I have seen you present similar references multiple times, only to find that there are remarks in passing, can you provide page numbers and preferably complete quotations to show that those work discuss this particular toy at length? Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jak się nie ma, co się lubi, to się lubi, co się ma. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting a random irrlevant Polish proverb is... well, it doesn't even belong on Wikipedia:Arguments not use in deletion discusisons. But let me reply with another, more relevant proverb: speech is silver, silence is golden.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 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 09:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to failing the general notability guidelines. The sources just aren't there. Maybe the ones provided by Andrew are sufficient, but it's highly likely they are just trivial as things in books like the ones he referenced usually are. I don't feel like digging through them to find out either. I'd be willing to change my vote if quotes (and not ones of Polish proverbs) are provided though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources provided are specialized directories of countless generic toys. We are not that, and there's no indication what makes this figurine notable, as being a product sold is not automatic notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:05, 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 merge to University of Akron. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goodyear Polymer Center[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulger Hall, in which the 11th tallest building in Akron Ohio was deleted, we have here the 8th tallest. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Geschichte (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Should be a short section in the Univ. of Akron article. Hardly notable by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 03:46, 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 10:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Akron. Seems like a good compromise. I don't think it's notable enough for it's own article, but merging it to the universities article is fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Akron per above. Does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 03:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blob Wars (series)[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable and fail WP:GNG. Has not been properly sourced since its creation. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking notability. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since this article fails WP:GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:44, 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 redirect to Minecraft. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve (Minecraft)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet GNG. – DarkGlow (✉) 16:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 16:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 16:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a draft at Draft:Steve_(Minecraft) and linked discussion at WPVG here. The page recreation should have just been reverted instead of an AfD. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reply I saw the discussion, and when I saw the article was recreated, I thought it was best to sort this through an AfD, since the notability of the subject has already been disputed. – – DarkGlow (✉) 17:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per link above. There’s been extensive discussion and existing consensus that this article doesn’t have independent notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above discussion links. --Masem (t) 16:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm fine with AFD settling the discussion of notability on this topic. Per the linked discussion and the nom, the subject does not meet GNG, and there's little direct commentary on the character. -- ferret (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems to lack notability as a character separate from the game. A redirect is perfectly fine though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree with the statements above. SWinxy (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minecraft appears most appropriate in this instance per WP:NOTINHERITED]. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minecraft per above. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per previous discussions. Jontesta (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, and perhaps WP:SALT to prevent recreation. Haleth (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:GNG concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. IceWelder [✉] 12:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Taylor (American football)[edit]

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

Doesn't look notable. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, as he was suspended or injured, missing every potential game of his NFL career. He was on the XFL practice squad, so that doesn't really count for anything, either. Current sourcing either doesn't mention him, is brief transactional notices, or is tweets/blogs. Some briefish coverage here, and some more brief stuff here. Okay Bleacher Report piece, but it's mostly some scouting stuff and doesn't say a whole lot about him. This guy just doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements, although I'd say he's closer than some. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG - he was highly recruited out of high school. In addition to the sources mentioned above, I was able to dig up [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Decent amount of coverage for an offensive lineman. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NGRIDIRON and I don't think the coverage above is non-routine, reliable, or not-youth-sportsy enough to get him over the WP:GNG bar for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage of youth sports is more trivial in nature than of real sports. Geschichte (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jim Starlin#DC Comics.. Consensus is to redirect (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh II[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this four issue comic series. SL93 (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Surprisingly, I actually did find one pretty decent source here, in a book discussing the Ancient Near East's influence on modern pop culture. This comic gets a fairly good chunk of discussion in the chapter on Gilgamesh. There is also this article from Back Issue! about Jim Starlin that mentions it, as well, though the actual coverage on Gilgamesh II is very minimal, and basically just boils down to "this is a thing he did during this time". With one good source and one not-so-good source, I'm not quite ready to commit to recommending a Keep, but I do believe that straight deletion is inappropriate - at the very least, it should be Redirected to Jim Starlin#DC Comics. Rorshacma (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jim_Starlin#DC_Comics. I could find not sources beyond those already mentioned by Rorshacma and I don't consider them significant coverage. The scholarly one is a one-paragraph plot summary that is only a passing example of the authors's point that the Gilgamesh epic resonates and was adapted to tell new stories in the 20th century. It is not really that significant in context. The Back Issue! source is even less impressive. No evidence that this was a significant work aside from "it was something a famous comic writer did." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Africa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is entirely unencyclopedic and reads like a poorly written social media posts. It is a bizarre mix of WP:CHERRYPICKING with no coherent idea. It is very short of meaningful content. For example, the entire section on the United States reads In the United States, Africa is viewed as disease-ridden and backward., for Australia and New Zealand the entire section says Australians view Africans as part of criminal gangs.[47] New Zealanders view Africans as illiterated. ([SIC]) and so on. Despite being tagged as entirely unencyclopaedic for eight months already, it remains in an appalling state. Improving it does not seem an option; with a subject as vague as this, any attempt to write an article will always run into the same cherrypicking issue. We don't have articles for stereotypes about other continents either, and I see no reason we should have this one either. It is quite possibly the worst article I've come across in ten years on Wikipedia Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the first part can be cut until we find some evidence that different countries hold substantially different stereotypes; most of these blurbs are redundant. But what about the "Common stereotypes" section? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is "only" bad, so not as bizarre as the rest. However, most of it deals exclusively with US stereotypes about Africa. And even there, it's still making sweeping and poorly substianted claims. Jeppiz (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity, what could, if anything make this article redeemable for you? For example, would more precise language through citing statistics help? SacredSunflower (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article is itself a stereotype ie. that sterotyping of Africa(ns) have only occurred in mainly late (ie. post 19th cent.) colonial times onwards. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is horribly written. The invocation of Swahili is a horrible thing to do, considering that there are essentially no speakers of Swahili in Africa's most populous country, Nigeria. This is a horrible article, it needs much more nuance. For example it is often no so much that people think of Africa as a country per se, more like various other conventions lead them to not treat Kenya, Ghana and Zimbabwe as three very distinct countries. The article needs huge amounts of improvement, but that is not reason to delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. There is certainly an article to be written here, but this WP:ESSAY is a quasi-random list of examples, most of which need substantially more sourcing not to constitute WP:UNDUE weight or WP:CHERRYPICKING. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Johnpacklambert here. It's a bad article as currently written, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Since there something that could be made of it. I don't think WP:TNT applies because it's such a short article. The concept is a thing though. A few possible references that could be possibly used include "Images of Africa: Stereotypes & Realities, Maybe "White on black: Images of Africa and blacks in western popular culture," There's also some stuff out there about how stereotypes played into apartheid. Although, maybe that would be "Stereotypes in Africa"? So, my recommendation is to clean it up and do another AfD in six months if things don't improve. In the meantime though AfD isn't cleanup and I'm just not convinced this isn't a notable subject. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sorry, but is this seriously the worst article you have ever seen? I have been on Wikipedia for less time, and this probably wouldn’t even crack my top 20. Ignoring that, however, this is a reasonably covered topic, and the idea that we don’t have stereotype pages of other regions is not true; see Stereotypes of White Americans for example. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair "white Americans" isn't a region. Which makes me think maybe the title of the article needs to be changed. Adamant1 (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that needs to be done, I’d be up for that. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How outsiders misinterpret Africa is an enyclopedic subject, with many academic sources and a long history from colonialism to the present day. If an article is crap - and this is far from the worst I've seen - deletion is not the option, cleaning it up is. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. There's literally been whole books and TV documentaries about this subject. Wikipedia is not censored from including disturbing or controversial topics; see, e.g., Hunting license, Stereotypes of white Americans, and Palestinian law. It's not so bad to meet WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakestar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. A small private company. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 30 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 15:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Coverage that is significant is either not independent or not reliable and vice-versa. WP:NOTDIR also applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fe Amorsolo[edit]

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

Amorsolo had a few roles as an actress, but it is unclear that any of her roles add up to what would be considered significant roles in notable productions. The one source is something that aims to be a comprehensive directory and does not in any way show actual notability. Plus one source on its own is never enough to pass the general notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing that I have found would indicate the requisite notability. If sources are found, please let me know and I'll review my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:23, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Health in Switzerland[edit]

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

Minimal content for years. All content also available in linked articles. Hardly any changes for years. ZH8000 (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ZH8000 (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It needs work, but we have articles about health in all substantial countries. I cant see removing this as a helpful measure. Rathfelder (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going by the sources it seems like this is way to broad a topic and that whatever is out there isn't actually "Health in Switzerland" per say. For the instance the Human Capital Report. Which is way broad, not specifically about health in Switzerland, and also FYI is a dead link. Same goes for the second source. Which, is also dead. The forth one might work, but half of it is about "Healthcare Challenges." Plus, most of it is pretty trivial and extremely surface level. For instance "Baby boomers in Switzerland are growing old." As if that's not obvious. Reference five has to do with "mental health." Which just goes to show this to broad of a subject. We have aging, mental health, challenges of healthcare, and a study of human capital in 195 countries. So, this is way to broad of subject to make it meaningful, the sources are trivial/primary/dead links anyway, and I don't see either of those things changing. Plus, there's already articles that cover this stuff perfectly fine in a more specific manor. For instance Healthcare in Switzerland. There isn't a Mental health in Switzerland article, but one could be created. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination fails to explain why we should single out Switzerland for special treatment when we have similar articles for all other European countries, detailing their life expectancy, infant mortality and the like. The World Health Organisation makes no such distinction – see Highlights on Health in Switzerland for their detailed report. Insofar as the page has not had much attention lately, this is best addressed by giving it some TLC, rather than by deleting it. That's our policy: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Except the "similar" articles are actually on specific topics like "Disability in Hungary‎." Which this article isn't and there's already like 10 articles specifically for Switzerland that are. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Adamant1 seems to be mistaking categories for articles. The equivalent article for Hungary, Health in Hungary, contains similar content about life expectancy and next to nothing about disability. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your the one that linked to a category. Not that WP:OSE is a valid argument or that I care if you change your vote anyway. I was simply pointing out that are more specific articles about the subject, which is the direction I think this should go in, because I thought you might have an opinion it as an option. So, maybe AGF. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE explains that '"other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid.' In this case, they are quite valid because the pattern is so clear and consistent. Consider Switzerland's neighbours:

It would be anomalous to selectively delete the page about Switzerland. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it's selective though? Maybe the nominator plans to do AfDs for the other ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know this because I already checked out the nominator and found that they only seem to edit articles about Switzerland. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously a notable topic. AfD is not cleanup, WP:WIP, etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Health is a broad topic. But its not the same as healthcare. Rathfelder (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. This article needs better sourcing and more edits/EXPANSION. Notable/essential topic (as for all countries). Swiss romulus (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Health is a main topic classification. Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion above and WP:OUTCOMES. I especially note that we have discussed and kept many similar articles that needed TLC, see, e.g, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nursing_in_pakistan (sic.). Unless consensus changes, these are considered "encyclopedic" articles for which our core readership will be looking. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 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. If anyone wants to merge content from this article elsewhere, please ask me (or any other admin) to restore the article to your userspace for this purpose. ‑Scottywong | [babble] || 01:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Lex Luthor[edit]

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

As with most of the others deleted, this is a collection of trivial plot-only details lacking real world information provided by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. It's just an unneeded plot dump of every minor variation of the character that could easily be handled by two paragraphs describing the most prolific of them in the main article. If any of these need actual attention, they can be placed on relevant character lists or series articles. TTN (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reason for this to be a seperate article. I am also unconvinced that Lex Luthor in other media needs to be a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've worked on the article in an effort to make it more cohesive, but I agree that overall there is no reason for it to be a separate article. I do think there should be a separate article for the Lex Luthors of Earth-3/Crime Syndicate related because they have multiple incarnations and stories, but most of the other alternate Luthors only exist in a single story and some only as a cameo, and as such almost every one of them can be summed up in a sentence or two. I think it should be merged with the main Lex Luthor article.AlanSigma (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable WP:CONTENTFORK that does not meet the WP:GNG. We have three articles about the same thing, with an article about Lex Luthor in other media along with the main Lex Luthor article. If an article becomes too long we should summarize and clean-up the main article. This spinout article doesn't meet our WP:NOTABILITY standards. Jontesta (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lex Luthor is one of the most iconic characters in comic books, and his multiple incarnations over the years are covered substantially. If someone wants to create separate articles for some of the more pertinent versions of the character, as AlanSigma suggests, I would not be opposed to that. But as of now, this list needs to be rewritten or converted to prose. Not everything with "Alternate versions" in the title is an invalid content fork. Dark knight 2149 03:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is referenced to the main article. No sources have been shown that suggest that the concept of LL's alternative version deserves a stand-alone article. WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is better material for a DC Comics Wiki or its equivalent.TH1980 (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikia-cruft and a non-notable content fork. Fails GNG, per others._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CFORK collection of fancruft trivial plot-only details. Anything that becomes notable can be easily handled in the main article. // Timothy :: talk 08:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable content fork that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikia material, sourced to primary/in-universe material, strange topic. Geschichte (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Tower (Lansing, Michigan)[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 14:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just a namedrop, although I'm finding other similar sources, apparently about the same incident. A couple brief mentions in government reports are only references that some agency has offices there. This is only a mention in a list of buildings closed for maintenance. Just a quote from the developer. Yeah, I'm not turning up any GNG or NBUILD coverage. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hog Farm and nom Spiderone 08:12, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Tennessee Plaza[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 14:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage in the article seems to be extremely trivial and I couldn't find anything about it that wasn't. There's hardly even the usual trivial news stories these things sometimes get. There does seem to be some trivial mentions in a few law books about it though, but those don't work for notability either. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:51, 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 delete. After reading through the whole discussion, there's a strong consensus that GNG is not met, regardless of questions relating to the creator's COI/lack thereof. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian J. Smith[edit]

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

completely and utterly non-notable individual sourced to puffed up fabricated press releases and blackhat SEO with no actual coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a source assess table for posterity.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.forbesmagazine.com/product-page/march-31-2020			not even about Smith	✘ No
https://www.influencive.com/tips-for-success-in-trading-and-life-from-christian-j-smith/	influencive is a guest posting site that accepts pay for publications and has no real editorial staff			✘ No
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/christian-j-smith-young-genius-205500942.html	yahoo press releases, will publish anything, is a PR and has no editorial oversight			✘ No
https://nyweekly.com/entrepreneur/christian-j-smith-on-starting-out-as-an-entrepreneur/	like influencive, its a guest posting site masquerading as a news outlet			✘ No
https://www.frostfxthemarketmasters.com/#bio/	bio on his own website	~ for primary information		✘ No
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-10-entrepreneurs-watch-2020-204500711.html			same as #3	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Praxidicae (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok folks, time to step back for a minute. I encourage everyone to reassess the page creator in question, doublecheck that they're certain on certain behavior, and take a breather. Remember WP:NPA and also make sure to check the editor's contribution history before making claims. If you still have substantial reason to suspect WP:PAID violation, take action then. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source assessment table, I now understand better why you considered the page for deletion. It helps to be more specific as to your reasons behind deleting a page rather than vaguely saying it's under-sourced/cited when the article includes several references. It was rather confusing, so thank you for the clarification. :) Milkyway677 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, I must say that your word choice "completely and utterly non-notable" sounds rather biased and as if you have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article, or rather the person the article is written about. Then to respond saying,"black-hat SEO for vanity purposes. Typical attention-seeking entrepreneur". Are you kidding? If this is the attitude of editors to instead of trying to be reasonable, be hostile, derogatory, and potentially racist - then I am glad I found out quickly as I will no longer contribute to wikipedia. Thanks for giving me a behind the scenes glimpse of the toxic environment. Milkyway677 (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with racism? We're talking about undisclosed paid spam here. Try to show a bit of interest in something else other than promoting your SEO client, and then we can talk. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What client are you talking about? I found this young fellow in Forbes Magazine, and took it upon myself to research him to see what his story was about. Sure enough I found plenty of news articles featuring him, so i took it upon myself to create a page for him.Milkyway677 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milkyway677 Where in Forbes? Because the article I found mentions him no where. Praxidicae (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the reference, do you see a Forbes article listed there? No, because he is the printed Forbes Magazine, the March 2020 issue. Are you trying to play games with me now or what? Milkyway677 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milkyway677 Have you actually read it? What is the article title? Merely citing a page number and generic issue isn't a source. Praxidicae (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference also clearly lists the page number as well, page 91. Anyone who grabs a copy of the magazine can easily go to that page, for the Forbes Magazine March 2020 issue, and find it. Being that not even a full day has gone by yet and you immediately tried to delete the page, you clearly have not done your due diligence and you clearly are biased. You do not care to verify the reference, you'd rather just delete the page due to a conflict of interest which is obvious now. Milkyway677 (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would you look at that, a single sentence quote from him as per his ig. That isn't coverage and it certainly isn't about him. And it's a paid for advert! Whodathunkit? Praxidicae (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to spill the beans here, but I'm pretty darn sure that @Praxidicae: and @MER-C: can tell in an instant. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Tell your boss or client that we don't need more entrepreneur spam on Wikipedia. It is blatantly obvious that this paid junk about brands, entrepreneurs to watch out for, and social media vanity has no place on a non-profit educational site. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, any experienced editor can likely spot this kind of paid editing without much difficulty. It helps that you made it blatantly obvious. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep mentioning paid editing, what are you talking about? Because I am diligent and went out of my way to create a professional page for an individual, your immediately go to is that it must be paid for? I bet you wouldn't say that if a create a new page for a non-individual, such as another topic. Also, quite frankly as far as I am concerned every article in regards to "individuals" (articles about people" can be considered paid editing. All it takes is to get a media source to repeat a statement in the news saying something about an individual, and then suddenly you can add that statement back to a wikipedia page and then cite that source. You are telling me that every page on an "individual" (person) on the wikipedia platform is free of such a devious act? Stop telling jokes. You guys must just be hating on whatever this guy accomplished. Thanks for making that blatantly obvious. Carry on. Milkyway677 (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Professional page?" Yikes. Take a peek here first. Next, add WP:ARTICLE to your reading list. We have encyclopedia articles here, not professional pages. You're thinking of LinkedIn. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble decoding what you're trying to convey here, so I don't think this is an in-house PR team. Where on earth did your cash-strapped client outsource to? HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I say professional page, I mean that I spent hours looking at other encyclopedic articles such as celebrities for example, or similar pages about people that are traders or investors. I spent lots of time learning from the source coding and learning how to properly format/structure a wikipedia article, from the opening, to the info box, and how to properly format the reference. I always had trouble getting this right, but for the first time I actually got it when making a page for this fellow. So that's what I meant by a professional page, meaning not something that looks like it was poorly put together formatting wise. Milkyway677 (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And still at this point, you continue to try and disrespect me. I've had just enough of your nonsense now. Milkyway677 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Obvious paid-for corporate spam and black-hat SEO for vanity purposes. Typical attention-seeking entrepreneur trying to boost site traffic. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable 20-year-old businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So for future reference, should new editors just stay away from creating new articles for people (individuals)? If anything this was all a good learning lesson for me, But honestly the way that the editors responded to me was rather disrespectful, and they made assumptions and ridiculed me rather than try to help. I don't like it, and I will have you reported. Milkyway677 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milkyway677, Reported to where? —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I say report, I do not mean on wikipedia. I have family within the U.S Department of Justice, so I will speak with them and see what they have to say. You literally have a service badge stamped to your profile and should be an example to the community - but still, instead of trying to help you ignore my question - and focus on "reported to where" and then your fellow colleagues reply to me putting links to wikipedia pages about "stupid questions"??? Blatant disrespect. I'm done here. have a nice day. Milkyway677 (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milkyway677, WP:LEGAL. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- DOJ friends? This is run-of-the-mill trolling from the subcontinent. Try harder next time. Thanks for the free comedy. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made not made any "threats". What you editors have posted here is a complete defamation of character to the subject of the article in question "Christian J. Smith", and further more you have repeatedly disrespected me and it is you who should be blocked and checked for your character. What I said is within my right. Take care Milkyway677 (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean literally making comments such as "Where on earth did your cash-strapped client outsource to?" and you are trying to check "me" for my character? You guys are a joke. I appreciate the comedy. I'll forget this ever even happened. You guys aren't worth any more of my time. I tried to be reasonable, but you continuosly disrespected me anyway. Milkyway677 (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milkyway677, Wikipedia is run on Volunteer effort, trying to run a massive encyclopedia. And you're being paid to write a single promotional page for one client, and waste our time in the process. We are biased against paid editors, I admit that, but your first step should've been to not do this in the first place. Paid editors, when they are present, are held to a very high standard and are expected to already be familiar with the site. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's true. We have zero tolerance for paid spammers, whether they're in NYC, a village in a tropical country, or the Milky Way. We're pretty nice to genuine newbies. However, in your case, it is clear as day that you've been paid to spam Wikipedia before. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you could have kindly and simply said the subject in question did not meet the crtieria for a wikipedia article, and pointed to ways to improve it I would have said ok and moved on. But then you slander the subject in question, disrespect me, and then throw assumptionsthat I am being paid to edit on wikipedia. I am not being paid anything. I took on wikipedia as a new hobby to be more productive with my spare time, and do something that contributes in some way. You keep saying it's clear as day, but what evidence of that do you have? I am upset about this entire exchange because I am not being paid anything, but you guys keep saying it for some reason i guess to try and get this guys page deleted. If you want to delete the page fine by me, I honestly done care. It was the disrespect from the editors here that ticked me of, and subjected me to defending myself against such defamation of character, and slander. Milkyway677 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I very literally said this in my nomination: completely and utterly non-notable individual sourced to puffed up fabricated press releases and blackhat SEO with no actual coverage. No one is defaming you and once more, WP:NLT. Read it, live it love it. Praxidicae (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you everyone again for the help. Sorry for all the trouble. With everything said, the least we could do is part ways in peace. Milkyway677 (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milkyway677, Thank you for your other contributions. I took the time to reassess my stance (and looked at your contribution history), and would like to apologize for being hasty. The AfD reasoning still stands, but I think there's been a failing of WP:AGF here for everyone involved. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Moonythedwarf WP:AGF is an important rule, but we are dealing with persistent spammers here. The user's contribution history is a very classic and blatantly obvious pattern for outsourced paid editors, as you can see from the types of edits and other clues. The article's perfect American English and formatting are not consistent with the user's actual writing style. The chances of this kind of editing pattern coming from a genuine newbie with no COI are virtually zero. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. While I try to assume good faith, the creator is very defensive, and goes to the length of making legal threats to intimidate other editors. This does not strike me as an editor who found this young fellow in Forbes Magazine, and took it upon myself to research him. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 17:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is just on the AfD side of the G11 CSD. I don't think it's rescuable with rewrite because the result is likely to be an A7 CSD. I'm afraid it has to go. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Although I'd like to assume good faith, it never-the-less needs to go, and i've expressed this sentiment before. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all references are either recycled press releases or don't seem to be reliable sources, the same for anything I could find myself. Shritwod (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete - Now I see the Accesswire mention. Yeah, looks like pure promotion, sorry. Whether or not the article creator is overly defensive or made legal threats doesn't have any bearing as to the notability of the article's subject. AfD isn't for cleanup and we shouldn't delete an article on a notable topic just because of the behavior of an editor. The Paula Henderson and Tyler Penske articles are enough to satisfy all points of the GNG. If there are issues with puffery or undue promotion, they can be resolved with editing. ♟♙ (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no neither of those articles are reliable sources. It's completely faked, black hat SEO and press releases.~~Tyler Penske isn't even a real person, it's a stock image.~~ Unless of course, you want to argue that VIP Media Group is a hybrid PR agency. Their diverse client base includes top-class entrepreneurs, public figures, influencers, and celebrities. isn't a blatant press release. Praxidicae (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. @Milkyway677, I hate that I’m about to spill the bean a little, but your bludgeon (advocacy, since a vested interest is present), battleground mentality, moderate competency, cockiness & general rude comments, isn’t something a 5 day out Wikipedian would innately possess, that would be a trait of a problematic editor who is an old hand/quite familiar with the project & that right there easily gives you away. Like someone once told me, UPE editors aren’t master minds they are just plain stupid. Err, sorry if that was rude. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no independent mention of this person except PR coverage. Bretalins (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C: Care to take a look at Milkyway677 (talk · contribs)? We've all been too patient by engaging him in conversation. Your approach would likely be different. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, the bludgeoning does nothing to help the argument. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, sources are pretty easily to identify as paid for. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:48, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anahita Bhooshan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR or GNG. - DarkGlow (✉) 13:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC) DarkGlow (✉) 13:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DarkGlow (✉) 13:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an as yet not notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: delete per nomination and WP:TOOSOON ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, seems to be written like a fanpage.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, TOOSOON ☆ Bri (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Draftify: I agree that it seems a bit WP:TOOSOON for an article on the subject. I don't think WP:NACTOR is yet made out, and while there are sources online, they don't seem particularly reliable (like the TellyChakkar sources). The article might be worth draftifying, but I don't think it is quite ready for the mainspace. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dflaw4, I don't think draftifying is helpful until someone is going to improve it. Otherwise it will go G13 after some months. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Aafī, if someone wants to commit to improving it, then draftifying seems fair to me. But, as it is, the article isn't ready for the mainspace, I don't think. Dflaw4 (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dflaw4, I would not object to draftification if at least one editor commits that they would improve it. Otherwise draftification is just unneccessary. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 12:48, 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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Terra[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Missing WP:SIGCOV and WP:BAND. - Roger editor (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 14:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails per above and WP:GNG. Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:24, 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 redirect to Kerala State Film Awards. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala State Film Award for Best Sync Sound[edit]

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

There is already a page about this subject. This article was created for sync sound winner entries but in the page I first mentioned includes all the sound awards including sync sound. SidhardhRamesh ^💬 12:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kerala State Film Awards. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, already covered there, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 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. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Éder dos Santos[edit]

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

A BLP on a retired footballer that played 26 minutes of professional football in the second tier of the Mexican pyramid 13 years ago and then never played again. There is strong consensus that articles that scrape through WP:NFOOTY by the skin of their teeth should at least meet some amount of WP:GNG. He is covered in some sources but they are largely focused on his more famous relatives and notability is not inherited as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Spiderone 10:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. Giant Snowman 10:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG based on one substitute appearance. No plausible redirects either to preserve content- he has many notable family members, so makes no sense to redirect to one of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable footballer who comes from a notable footballing family. There is no online in-depth coverage in English- or Spanish-language sources. Jogurney (talk) 18:20, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bompton Had a Dream[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no reason given. There is an obvious COI issue here in that the article creator appears to be the producer but, that aside, I think the article fails all applicable guidelines anyway.

Concern was Fails WP:NFILM; no reviews or significant coverage in WP:RS Spiderone 10:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very poor referencing, 5 on Youtube that nobody is watching, several casting calls, company profile pages, announcements and interviews that are dependent sources. Nothing independent, not in-depth. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In addition, I could not find even one review for this film (unless tweets now count as reviews, which they probably will the way this world's going) Spiderone 17:28, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar Aanmoen[edit]

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

Impressive CV which boils down to almost nothing when one actually looks at it. He is a writer for royal central, an online royalty website. His books are "independently published", i.e. self-published.

His honors? The House Order of Hohenzollern? No idea who is supposed to still be handing these out, but I certainly can't find any independent sources to verify this. The "Victory & Peace 75th Anniversary Medal" costs £75, anyone can "get" this "honour". The "La Noble Compañía de Bernardo de Gálvez" is handed out by the Catholic University of New Spain in Miami, and seems like something very shady. The same can be said about the "Member of The Diplomatic Society of Saint Gabriel", an organisation which gets no attention at all.

A total lack of notability, hidden behind a lot of puffery. Fram (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment deleted at Norwegian Wikipedia in 2013, following no:WP:Sletting/Oskar_Aanmoen. Captain Calm (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The whole thing is a lot of puff. We should follow the Norwegian WP in deleting the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:19, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Palandri[edit]

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

Contested PROD deprod - that consensus is for players who have retired with only one game not for still active players

My initial PROD was long standing consensus that one game (https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/zoe-palandri/) is not enough to be inherently notable, I can't see any sign that Palandri passes WP:GNG either

Starting an AfD to see whether one brief substitute appearance at the highest level is enough and also to discuss whether Palandri passes WP:GNG Spiderone 09:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Missing WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:SPORTBASIC also WP:TOOSOON in all likelihood. -- Roger editor (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our absurdly broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 11:13, 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 01:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Meadows School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 08:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The school was important in the establishment of its planned community – see here, for example: "the premier secondary school in Southern Nevada". And it is still a keystone institution for the city – see there, for example: "this place is the nexus of power in Las Vegas". Our policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What articles meet SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth? This is all run of the mill, average coverage. The idea that this school is a "keystone" institution or "nexus of power" in Las Vegas is non-sense. // Timothy :: talk 13:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the school lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources about it that are neutral or otherwise. Clearly calling the school a "nexus of power" is hyperbolic and the reference saying so shouldn't be taken seriously. Also, last I checked Necrothesp thinks that WP:GNG doesn't exist and that anyone who cites it is just a smug troll. So, I have zero clue his vote is in reference to. Imaginary guidelines he doesn't believe in I guess? Or it is just some weird round about way of calling himself a smug troll? Who knows. Either way, this article should clearly be deleted.
Keep This is a clear-cut notable school with a well-developed article. I'm quite surprised that it's up for nomination at all. Additional sources on top of the ones already presented above include [8] [9] [10]. SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As if a local news story about a school fundraiser is a "clear-cut" pass of either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:10, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Davies (footballer)[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Missing WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. -- Roger editor (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify - does not yet meet any inclusion criteria Spiderone 13:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the moment this he does not seem to meet notability requirements having not played for a club competing at a high enough level. Dunarc (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any of the Standard Wikipedia article criteria fail NFOOTY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynndonald (talk • contribs)
Delete per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:33, 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. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Tchórz[edit]

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

Football coach who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Never head-coached a senior team in fully-pro league. External links are equivalent of résumé and routine transfer reports. Recreated after PROD with new coaching position, but the old concerns still stand. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NFOOTBALL as this person represented professional leagues. In considering the WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines, which states that "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable." -- Roger editor (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 14:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - does NFOOTY cover assistant managers? Spiderone 09:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. The manager (or head coach) manages, the assistant assists but he's not in charge. --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL (the latter only applies to players and managers, not assistants or other coaches). Giant Snowman 10:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - definitely fails NFOOTY but may pass GNG. I am not familiar with the sources but found many [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Does anyone know if any of these are reliable sources? Spiderone 18:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete rank-and-file assistant coach , no major leagues. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO, also promotional: "a plan to kick start a new era ". The sport-spam need to stop, what's next? Articles for stadium cleaners and vendors? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puncher[edit]

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

Not seeing WP:BAND being met. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing about this band that would come close to passing the criteria listed at WP:NBAND. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:44, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swapan K. Gayen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject doesn't meet Notability and GNG. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 06:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Missing WP:NACADEMIC, WP:BIO and WP:GNG also WP:TOOSOON in all likelihood. -- Roger editor (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think that anything has changed since the last AfD a month or so ago. And I still think that there are plenty of highly-cited papers for WP:NPROF C1, including ones as first/last author (in a field where that matters). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. I don't see it's fullfill "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Article has 3 sources which are primary source and there is no significant coverage about this person. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 with well-cited publications on Google Scholar [16]. Possibly speedy as the nomination does not provide an indication of considering the previous AfD or reasons why the outcome should have changed between now and then. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on "we just went through this" grounds, and the lack of an actual argument to overturn the result of the previous AfD. The case for passing WP:PROF#C1 looks respectable, and passing WP:PROF makes the GNG beside the point. XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as seems to just about pass WP:NPROF. Also holds a chair position, though doesn't seem to be a named chair? In any case, not sure what's changed since the last AFD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gender-neutral language seems to have introduced an ambiguity here. In more sexist times he would have been referred to as the former chairman of the department, something distinct from a professorial chair. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed in the few weeks since the first discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why was this article nominated again after the first discussion ended in favour of keeping it only a month ago? I will go with Speedy keep here per above and first AfD. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 16:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep here per above and first AfD. Is there going to be some wait time before the next AfD? Germsteel (talk) 07:29, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Mutz[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NPOL. WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV providing direct and in depth coverage of the subject. There is routine, normal coverage. BLP articles should strictly follow sourcing requirements in guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 06:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Missing WP:POLITICIAN also WP:TOOSOON in all likelihood. -- Roger editor (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to justify an article for a local politician. Mayors are not default notable, we need high quality indepth coverage which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayors are not inherently notable, and there doesn't seem to be anything here which gets him over that line. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors do not get an "inherent" notability freebie just because they exist — the notability test for mayors is the ability to write and source a substantive article about his political significance (specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth), not just the ability to offer technical verification that he exists. But this article, as written, just documents that he exists and says nothing about him that would actually pass the bar. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wildstorm Universe[edit]

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

Overly in-depth plot dump that fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. WildStorm and List of Wildstorm titles are sufficient to handle any fictional context deemed important enough for inclusion. TTN (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:NFICTION. Redirect to WildStorm, perhaps. Nothing salvagable I see here, mostly unreferenced, and the existing references are low quality. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG with relative ease, given the multitude of sources on the topic. It's also the shared universe of a major comic book imprint. NOTPLOT is not a criteria for deletion, so if you have a problem with it, then rewrite it. AfD is not clean-up.

To name a few:

https://www.cbr.com/wildstorm-characters-dc-universe/

https://www.gamesradar.com/the-greatest-wildstorm-characters-of-all-time/

https://comicbook.com/dc/news/exclusive-dc-to-revive-wildstorm-imprint-curated-by-warren-ellis/

https://www.ign.com/articles/2016/10/04/writer-warren-ellis-to-reboot-dcs-wildstorm-universe

https://screenrant.com/evil-flash-comic-wildstorm-preview/

https://www.vulture.com/2016/10/wildstorm-comics-warren-ellis.html

https://www.denofgeek.com/comics/the-new-wildstorm-universe-expands-with-michael-cray-1/

https://www.gamesradar.com/dc-postpones-plans-to-reprint-gen-13-origin-story-back-to-2022/

https://www.gamesradar.com/expect-more-wildstorm-returns-at-dc-next-year/ Dark knight 2149 18:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those provide significant coverage for the fictional universe, which is the core of the article. If you want to separate the fictional topic from the brand name perspective, Wildstorm already covers the publication history and the list of titles covers the works in it. TTN (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except there is WP:SIGCOV. The first source is entirely about the real world history of the fictional universe and why it was eventually merged into the main DC Universe in 2011. The second source discusses the characters of the universe, including their publication history. A WP:BEFORE test shows that this site has also published articles discussing the universe itself more directly. This news article and this news article discuss DC's decision and reasoning for unmerging the two universes. This article discusses how a major DCU character is portrayed in the Wildstorm Universe. This article is entirely significant coverage. This article also goes into significant detail about the history of the universe, its style, and importance. And on top of that, there are even more sources that I didn't list. I think it unquestionably passes GNG. Dark knight 2149 19:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s clearly all primarily referring to the publication history of the “Wildstorm Imprint”/“Wildstorm series,” which is also referred to as the “Wildstorm Universe.” That is completely different from discussing the “Wildstorm Universe” as its own separate fictional topic as the article is doing. Nothing of what you have posted covers the fictional topic in any significant way. The main article is where any discussion of that belongs. TTN (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If some of those sources were used in the article I might consider changing my vote to merge. As they aren't, it's a TNT-able fancruft mess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep clealry passes GNG. Artw (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Funcraft that fails WP:GNG. The sources in the article seem to be either primary, dead links, or otherwise un-reliable. There doesn't seem to be anything else out there either from what I saw when I looked. There are some articles out there about it, but it all seems to be about individual comic book releases. Which I don't think works for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Adamant1. Des not pass WP:GNG because the sources are off topic and in passing, about individual comic book releases. Primary and unreliable sources are not enough to demonstrate notability. Jontesta (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Non-notable fancruft that fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing the WP:GNG as adequate sources do not exist. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:25, 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon Manila[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL, no definite construction date nor significant coverage for this specific project in secondary sources. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The project was already approved by the Philippine Reclamation Authority and will proceed construction the second quarter of 2021. From 25 reclamation projects in Manila Bay with varying stages, only four were approved as of December 2019 by PRA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PH 0447 (talk • contribs) 11:34, October 21, 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WP:CRYSTAL item 1 states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". One of the latest articles reported that the project proponent is only "targeting to break ground in the second quarter of next year". Duterte has also explicitly stated his opposition against the reclamation project. It is a sign that it is still not definite. HiwilmsTalk 12:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. It remains to be seen if the project will push through or not. So, it's WP:TOOSOON at most. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has gotten lots of coverage and even Pinoys here in New York are chatting it up. Userfy if needed. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please provide your sources/proof for "lots of coverage" and "Pinoys here in New York are chatting it up". HiwilmsTalk 06:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Changed my vote, per Bearian. I recently realized that, unlike similar AfDs, the project did push through. I even found recent sources about it: [17], [18] and [19]. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. By "chatting up" I mean my partner and his friends are talking about it on social media. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the third source cited by Superastig. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Superastig. SportingFlyer T·C 00:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nannette Miranda[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, or even WP:GNG. Miranda is no longer a working journalist and most of the information here is from primary sources (like Twitter).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tunestoons (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Tunestoons (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tunestoons (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything either. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:04, 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. Sandstein 09:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia–Turkey proxy conflict[edit]

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

The article contains many inaccuracies because it contains original research. How many neutral and respected sources describe their relationship as a proxy conflict? In fact, there is no noteworthy proxy conflict between the two countries, and they do not support different militias to extend their influence. Perhaps Libya may be an example, but otherwise there is no conflict between them on any other front. Saudi Arabia does not receive support from the Syrian regime, Armenia, Cyprus, etc. The article in this status deserves to be deleted. Sakiv (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On what policy grounds are you proposing deletion? You mention OR, but on a quick glance I haven't seen any, and certainly not enough to warrant killing this. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this article is pretty deceptive and biased. For example, the Kuwaiti boycott of French-made goods is not a sign of supporting Turkey and its policies against Saudi Arabia. everyone knows that both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait enjoy good relations. Also, the editors of this article have used many Turkish pro-AKP sources like state-owned Anadolu Agency and TRT, the Daily Sabah, and the Qatari-sponsored Gulf News. OKMG-1200 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Saudi Arabia and Turkey enjoy good relations" and "used many pro-AKP sources". Well, your explanation doesn't make any sense at all. If you are saying Turkey before 2010s, then they were in good mod. In here yet you blatantly state Turkey and Saudi Arabia are in "good relations" while the same time you openly criticize pro-AKP information and ignore that Turkey's Erdogan is allying within the interests of Muslim Brotherhood (which Saudi Arabia and UAE opposed) and is openly demonstrating hostility toward Saudi interests. And Erdogan's Turkey has sought control of media since 2010s, which mean, neutral news like TRT and Daily Sabah have become AKP's mouthpieces. Do not talk when you did no research. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all of these "proxy conflict" articles (save for actual, notable, well-written ones, ex. Iran–Israel proxy conflict and Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict) are little more than collections of infobox and timeline gore. Lightspecs (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Per nom. Śαǿturα^💬 10:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per reasons above. 2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838 (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cornerstone University. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Network News[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable, not mentioned by reliable independent sources, promotional. GPinkerton (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Cornerstone University as no sign of independent notability. It can be selectvely merged to a paragraph or so, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
heavily prune and merge to Cornerstone University. I think that might be expanded by having a short section on its radio and mission news work, which is what this seems to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cornerstone University: Barely found anything about the news portal. It's best to have a segment about it in the target article. 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone University[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable, not mentioned by independent reliable sources GPinkerton (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GPinkerton (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GPinkerton (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. GPinkerton (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is an accredited university. ElKevbo (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Seriously? This is an independenly accredited degree-granting university. Also, lots of newscoverage of it, and other sources as well. ~~E.g. this book is specifically about the history of this university.~~ Passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG, by a mile. What's the deal with this nomination? Nsk92 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is an accredited university, strange that it does not have more coverage. // Timothy :: talk 11:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage such as a dedicated book on the subject and other reliable sources. It is common consensus that degree giving institutions of higher education are included as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should keep all articles on real, accredited universities, but please let's not use a book that is self-published via iUniverse to support that case. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry, that was my bad, I did not look closely enough to see that the book was self-published. Striking that part of my original comment. Nsk92 (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this article needs some attention to NPOV issues, I've listed on its talk page multiple clippings about the college, its historical policies on student dancing (against, then ok with it), student alcohol use (against), faculty and staff alcohol use (against, then okay, alright, banning is "Biblically indefensible"), gambling and casinos (against)-- but also a few clippings about interesting classroom work like copying scripture verses on vellum using quills, for example. Of the 900+ newspapers.com hits, I was surprised to find only a handful that were substantive on the University's programs, and not much on the history or finances-- but lots of routine sports coverage and the usual number of brides/grooms who attended there, and LOTS of ads placed by the university. But there was enough substantive coverage to more than pass GNG. Chees! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:28, 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) 09:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend Star[edit]

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

Non-notable entertainment complex and amusement park that does not satisfy geographic notability or building notability. No references to establish notability. Already moved into draft space as undersourced and re-created in article space. Naïve Google search shows that the complex exists; we knew that. Search does not turn up any independent mention of the complex. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. BengkelBerkah05 (Talks/Contribs) 06:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability Article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. There are no sources in the article and WP:BEFORE revealed only advertising, promos, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 05:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While it was challenging to wade through this discussion with all the SPAs, ultimately there is consensus that the sourcing available for this individual is not yet sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. This is a young actress, so it is plausible that if she continues her acting career successfully, more sources will become available to satisfy GNG in the future. ‑Scottywong | [express] || 02:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Harrington[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Also reads like a resume for a very young actress. Very likely too soon for this one. KidAd talk 17:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no external relationship with this page or any page I helped work on. I wanted to try my hand at Wikipedia. I worked hard on this to be accurate and thorough and I have not done many because it is a lot of work. The actor is well established over many years and known throughout the region and country. I believe the page has strong merit which is why I spent time on it. I took a great deal of time researching all the sourcing and I think my work was very beneficial to the entire Wikipedia community. If there are issues on formatting I would hope someone else would make those corrections. But the information is completely valid and merits publication. Mywiki2664 talk 28 October 2020 (UTC) — Mywiki2664 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - It is interesting to note that the article creator is a single purpose account that also created the article on her sister Brigid Harrington. All of their edits have to do with promoting these two sisters. Netherzone (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. Brigid Harrington will need a careful look after this page is dealt with. KidAd talk 19:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 - Re: citations - The majority of the sources for this article are are either dead links; mention her only in two words that are her first & last name; she is not mentioned at all in several sources; are blogs/local -- only a few are usable. I also find it curious that the article creator uploaded the first image of one of the sisters in 2013 (for a photo shot in 2011) as "own work" and continued to upload photos of them over the years, yet claims they do not have a COI or UPE. Now we have a brand-new editor !voting who signed up yesterday, their vote was their first edit -- how on earth did a brand new editor find this page? ~~I am not necessarily saying that~~ the article should be deleted at this time, but something about this strikes me as very odd. Netherzone (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 - Re: Comment 2 - Hi, @Netherzone:. Thanks for including me in the discussion. I want to respond to your valid concerns. I am a new member of the Wikipedia community. I set up an account yesterday because I am interested in Wikipedia. I live in the Nashville, TN area, and don't know or have ever met this article's subject. I spent time on Wikipedia before and after creating my account navigating for items of interest. I suppose the answer to your question, "how on earth did a brand new editor find this page?" is "I don't know. Blind luck, I guess." My goal was to learn and participate, not to fall into controversy. With that said, I have observations that are admittedly partially guided by my novice status. It seems that there are problems with this article that relate to form and references. Clearly, some references should be pruned or clarified because they do not provide insight into the subject matter beyond a passing reference to the subject. However, despite not being a famous A-list performer, the subject's career arc does seem notable to me. "Notable" is, of course, subjective, which is what makes conversations like this challenging. I want to express that I don't believe this article rises to the level of deletion. Thank you again, and I look forward to learning more and becoming a valuable part of this community.

Comment 3 Addendum - Woops. Noob mistake. I did not sign my Comment 3 above. Sorry. ButlerianWintermute (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You learned very quickly how find AfD, indent, format !votes, ping editors, quote WP guidelines, etc. What Blind luck, I guess. you have for a novice/noob. Netherzone (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: I develop SaaS apps for a living. I've been writing code for several decades. Code and markup make sense to me after some trial and error. The Show Preview button has been invaluable for making and learning from my mistakes. Plus, I can see everyone else's markup and make deductions from there. I was only participating in order to learn and contribute. Your open and overt hostility towards me illustrates a territorial perimeter at play that I don't understand. I'll do us both a favor and hand you a win, leave and not return. Best of luck to you. ButlerianWintermute (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:PEACOCK needs to be dealt with via the normal edit process. However, otherwise there's enough WP:RS/WP:IS to meet WP:GNG — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To quote the above, I agree that there is enough WP:RS and WP:IS to meet the WP:GNG. Any disputes as to the veracity of the content either in the article or in any of the sources should be disputed or edited appropriately. To me, this article doesn't rise to level of deletion. Based on the comments above, I also referred to the article of this person's sister, Brigid Harrington, and while it does seem like both articles were contributed by the same initial contributor, the information seems worthy of inclusion and not misleading. ButlerianWintermute (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC) — ButlerianWintermute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I did some clean-up. Can someone else please do more clean-up? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: How is it possible that the previous two SPA's have suggested keep and yourself without any rationale? Where is the analysis? There is almost no coverage for the subject. The first nine references are announcements, passing mention, 404 pages and theatre notices where she is not even mentioned. scope_creep^Talk 15:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep I know the comment was directed at SSilvers, but I'd like to share my own more detailed rationale. 1 2 3 4 seem to provide substantial coverage, including interviews. To consider WP:GNG (as opposed to WP:NACTOR) I don't care what the interviews are about. 5 6 7 focus on her work and mention her. Akin to WP:PROF where, when your work is cited (even if the work is in collaboration with others), you are notable, for actors too, if the work is cited/reviewed and the person is mentioned that says something about your notability, though obviously by itself not enough per NACTOR — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to creep, I'll add that this person has had significant roles in multiple off-Broadway shows (stage productions), as well as in national tours. I think she easily passes WP:NACTOR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what does SPA mean? — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:SPA is a single-purpose account, or an IP/unregistered user/WP:COI user who edits in one subject area (or on one article) for the purposes of advocacy or promotion. They often pop up in deletion discussions. KidAd talk 21:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @KidAd: Do you think this person is notable? scope_creep^Talk 15:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I nominated the page for deletion. KidAd talk 16:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Ad Meliora: Most of the references you mentioned above as insufficiently in-depth to qualify as a decent references. Some of them are dependent sources. We will go the references. There is currently no coverage that satisfies WP:SIGCOV, nor WP:NACTOR nor even WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 20:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If an interview is not considered in-depth coverage, then I throw up my hands :-) — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Meliora: Interviews are considered primary sources because they are not independent of the subject, and are often PR vehicles. The source of the interview should also be taken into consideration, an interview at a local radio station such as WRAT, with a broadcast area of only two New Jersey counties (as in this article) is very different than a New York Times or other high-profile media outlet. In the case of this article the interview is not WP:SIGCOV. Netherzone (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get the second part of the argument, to which I'd say that to get the Einstein visa, you don't have to be Einstein, being Melania Trump is enough...i.e. noteworthiness is higher is it's international/national media, but local media is also RS/IS and shouldn't be written off. Some of the most important investigative stories, e.g. Jeffrey Epstein, of the last several decades have come from local media. With respect to the first part, I don't quite get it/agree. My own view is that the principle of WP:OR applies to factual information, not notability. Common sense dictates that the fact that a subject has an interview published in a major WP:RS/WP:IS makes them notable (i.e. counts towards WP:SIGCOV requirement), same as a profile would. But should we take every piece of information provided in the interview as fact? Of course not! — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 21:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Meliora: I added a television interview the actor did on NBC News in NYC. I think this definitely qualifies as a decent reference and is one of the largest markets (if not the largest) in the country. Also, I found another in-depth interview with the actor from another very decent reference- The Asbury Park Press- which is the 2nd largest newspaper in New Jersey.--Mywiki2664 (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:ENTERTAINER on all three criteria, and fails WP:GNG. Of the 24 references in the article, 8 only mention her name (two of which are user submitted content); 8 do not mention her at all; 1 is a one sentence-long mention; 1 is about her sister, not her; 2 are primary sources; 1 is a transcript of the interview primary source. There are three instances of actual coverage, but they are all local news, [20], [21], [22] That is not enough to pass WP:GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROMO for this young actor. Netherzone (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you all for your input. I will do more research and update this page to fulfill all requirements and any concerns you have. From what I already know, the actor has a long list of notable credits and is noteworthy. I will make edits that reflect that. --Mywiki2664 (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Mywiki2664 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
All Issues Addressed Thank you everyone for your hard work and input. I saw the edits made and I also spent the last 8 hours researching the subject again, and making more edits. I think the page is so much better now thanks to everyone's work and feedback. I believe that every issue was addressed. Multiple sources have been used-from large publications and broadcast networks from the largest market in the United States to smaller regional publications and media outlets. This actor has a vast, notable body of work which is verified and sourced from reputable sources. An actor being mentioned or listed in a notable production is clear verification of their notabality, and in addition, multiple longer-form interviews were added both in print and on camera. I believe there is more than enough here that addresses any concerns. Thanks again everyone.--Mywiki2664 (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is not over. That isn't how this works. KidAd talk 05:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also just found and cited a review and cast list published by The New York Times.--Mywiki2664 (talk) 06:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mywiki2664, being mentioned or simply having one's name published in a cast list is not Significant Coverage, as per WP guidelines. A source that merely mentions someone's name, or has a sentence or two about the person is not significant coverage. These are what is called on WP Trivial Coverage: "The general notability guideline WP:GNG stipulates that in order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required, to the point that original research that involves extracting information is not needed. Merely being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject does not necessarily satisfy this guideline." So if an article in X-publication is about the play itself and does not significantly cover the actor's role, it is considered trivial coverage. It's an unfortunate word, trivial, but that is the word used in WP's notability guidelines that were developed by consensus over a period of years. The article now has 31 citations, but still only 3 of them are about the subject, and those three are local, not national, international or even regional sources. See: WP:TRIVIAL and WP:SIGCOV Adding all these trivial sources is making the article more promotional in tone, see WP:PROMO and increases the puffery WP:PUFF. It might be best to trim down the article to focus on the best sources and avoid WP:REFBOMB. Netherzone (talk)

Netherzone, thanks for the feedback and definitely I will go in as you suggest and make some additional edits.--Mywiki2664 (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, just wanted to add though, I do disagree with your premise on this and agree with others in this discussion that the page meets the standards (and that was even before I made edits). But I am more than happy to pare it down and remove some sourcing that you believe may be trivial. FYI the Asbury Park Press is the 2nd largest paper in NJ and they did two extensive articles on the subject. And the New York Times article actually critiques her performance, and the news coverage from NBC is also quite significant...along with many others. But like I said I believe you have a valid point in narrowing it down although all 31 sources are valid which--in its totally--shows the subject is worthy of submission here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywiki2664 (talk • contribs)

Please explain how it is that you have been photographing both Harrington sisters over a period of nearly ten years, yet maintain that you do not have a conflict of interest. Netherzone (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This actress has her whole career ahead of her, but for now there is simply not enough significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to meet the GNG. I also agree with others above that she does not meet WP:NENT either: the one criterion she has a chance of passing is #1, but her "multiple significant roles" are in run-of-the-mill productions with only routine coverage. The interviews provided are all "local girl stars in local production" pieces by local media outlets; there is no significant coverage at all with any regional or national scope. CThomas³ (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: U.S. national tours are not local productions, and Off-Broadway productions attract top-tier talent. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say the national tours were local, I said her interview coverage was local, focusing on her local performances: two in a New Jersey newspaper and one from New York television station, all discussing her local off-Broadway performances in To Kill a Mockingbird and White Christmas. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but other than one brief mention, I didn't see any national tours covered in any of those pieces.
I do agree that top-tier talent does indeed occasionally perform off-Broadway. However, performing off-Broadway does not in itself make someone top-tier talent, nor does it make all off-Broadway productions significant. As of today, the Internet Off-Broadway Database contains 6,748 productions and 52,846 persons and companies. I imagine that there are some of these that are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, but the vast majority of them are not. I unfortunately do not see anything about this particular actress, or the productions in which she has appeared, that make them more worthy of notice than any of the others. This the definition of run-of-the-mill: a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest. CThomas³ (talk) 20:20, 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 redirect to Combined authority. ‑Scottywong | [talk] || 19:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

City region (United Kingdom)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/City region (United Kingdom)

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

There are city deals, there are combined authorities, and there are mayors of combined authorities (the later two provided for by legislation, but there is no such thing as a "city region" in the UK. The whole article is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the legislation and policy in England. Dan100 (Talk) 10:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "city region" was used before combined authorities existed, and the most well known is probably Liverpool City Region, as the name is now used for a combined authority, but other examples include Leeds City Region and Manchester City Region. The current article is misleading. Peter James (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The claim that there's "no such thing" is clearly false. For example, see Liverpool City Region to move into 'very high' local COVID Alert Level; City Region Deals; Sheffield City Region – Who we are. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this should be merged to Combined authority since these appear to cover the same topic with the same entities: the table in this article uses combined authority as the header and links directly to combined authority articles. West Midlands Combined Authority is in the city region article yet is not a city region! Sheffield City Region redirects to Sheffield City Region Combined Authority and Bristol City Region to West of England Combined Authority; Tees Valley and Tees Valley Combined Authority have identical subjects, the former focusing on the physical area and the latter on the government: perhaps they should be merged too. Reywas92^Talk 19:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the content is more relevant to combined authority, but to merge would be more misleading than the existing article. Some combined authorities are also city regions (or use "city region" in their name), but others are not. Leeds City Region is not a combined authority, and Manchester City Region includes districts that are not part of the combined authority. Peter James (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term appears to be informal and not official. Here's the reference used to support Teesside being a "City region" [23]. The document does not include the words "City" or "region". Arcturus (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to find consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 05:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Informal term, which has no legal meaning or status. The fact that documents can be found that use this informal term doesn't prove it has an official status. The attempts to define the term within the article are uncited, so it appears the creators/editors of the article have made up a definition themselves, rather than baseing it on independent, reliable, authoritative sources.94.139.8.203 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep–History: Let me start with 1974. UK & EU (with UK just entering EU) make regions to replace historic countys. These where there or thereabouts equally divided with industry and expansion of places in mind.

The UK adapted to ever-growing places without any set area names until 1997, with ceremonial counties. This meant the places could get back to being grouped in certain ways.

The ties from industry and connections to other nearby places didn’t change so city regions were brought in, not exactly simply with terminology and timing all over the place but it is setting in now. This phasing in started first in some ways after the 2011 census then really occurring when the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016.

Defining: Historic counties and regions are based off heritage and statistics like distance to other places and shared cultures.

Shire county (ceremonial) and city region (non-ceremonial) are based off needing a central body and place to operate economies and industry. Both have boroughs (districts/ authorities), have mayors and cover a main place with outliers. Shire counties border by rivers (give or take the odd bit because of governance) and city regions are around rivers.

A conurbation is basically a bigger city.

So, all in all, a region and county are synonymous in theory but serve differing functions when put to use.

Terminology: I would say each term has an equal and opposite term now:

Smaller	Bigger
Authority	District
Borough	Council
Ceremonial	Non-ceremonial
Non-metropolitan	Metropolitan
City	Metropolis
County	Former-Kingdom
Historic	Modern
Shire	County
Settlement	Conurbation
Unitary	Combined
Village	Town

Conclusion: Most things need two wheels to be stable while moving about (a unicycle is a case of it able to work enough with one but you don’t see that many about do you) and this is a way most things are done in government to appease both ends. Thanks if you read all of what I put down and sorry if this is oddly formatted and late.user:Chocolateediter🍫(talk) 12:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the further analysis trying a third relist to see if consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a mostly OR uncited informal term that doesn't have any legal basis. I'm probably more on the side of merge since it does have some reference and is used, although not enough to make a legitimate thing for an article IMO, but I couldn't come up with a good merge target. If someone wants to come up with one and ping me though I'll change my vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Book Looking again at this, I find a substantial and scholarly book on the subject: The City Region in Western Europe. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Leaning Delete or possible Merge): I am glad it was extended as I just saw it. To state, "there is no such thing as a "city region" in the UK" is not accurate. More likely an informal term and possibly too soon as many Metro-mayor elections were put off because COVID19. From what I have read (October 2020) there are battles that could result in Metro-Mayor defunding.

I have read "The Liverpool city region mayor" (passing mention), An elected mayor and the Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), English devolution: combined authorities and metro mayors, with content concerning "Liverpool City Region", "Sheffield City Region", "Liverpool City Region" and maybe others, but they all seem tied to the several times mentioned combined authority.

What we have here would actually be, "does this topic deserve a stand alone article?". As written, the article sucks because it does not actually give anything definitive. I see it as being written in a form similar to the wheel scenario (opinioned with all due respect) above.

There are many references to the "term" but City region:

1)- is not a defined geographical area.
2)- is not a defined political area.

What is it? In a broad sense it appears to be a coalition of certain entities referred to by the Nom as Combined authority. The premise for de-centralization of powers in the UK, known as "Devolution", set the stage for establishment for a more localized power structure that resulted in the creation of combined authorities. The coalitions can vary but from what I see now it appears to be an expansion and variations of the above combined authority. If "City region" is as it appears it is largely closely related to if not synonymous with "combined authority" so should be (I am still looking) either deleted or possibly merged to the appropriate article. Otr500 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Britannica its just another word for extensive urban sprawl. Maybe an article along those lines would be a good merge target. I feel like it should at least be mentioned somewhere. Adamant1 (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There are a number of ways the term came about. Look at Community Infrastructure Levy Planning gain along with others in the "See also" section, Local Government Act 2000, the Localism Act 2011, and the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 . A city region is part of a combined authority that covers an agreed upon area that can vary in area and participants. A definition of the "extensive urban sprawl" concept would be the same as for urban sprawl: "the uncontrolled expansion of urban areas", which does not fit with a planned concept for community organizations locally governing a certain "combined area". That would align more with a conurbation also referred to as urban agglomeration. Yes, it should probably be "mentioned somewhere" and from what I am seeing, if that is not at "City region" then "Combined authority" --or deleted. Otr500 (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Combined authority is probably the best bet. City region is badly sourced and will probably get an AfD eventually its self. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Combined authority, based on the definition given in the lead (which is consistent with the rest of the article). That is, this article is talking about the topic of "combined authorities with directly elected mayors", so should be at "combined authority". The fatal flaw undermining this as a "city region" article is that there is no evidence for the definition given. In fact, there are counterexamples suggesting the definition is false: North of Tyne Combined Authority does not possess the title "city region", and is almost never referred to as such, while Leeds City Region exists but has no combined authority covering its entire extent (and the combined authority covering Leeds itself currently has no directly elected mayor).

For the record, the book Andrew Davidson suggests above would be a fine source for City region as a topic, but does not provide a source for what this article is supposed to be about—I can't look in it, but the book was published in 1998, whereas the first combined authority came into existence in 2011. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 21:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS since the re-listing was based on the further analysis from Chocolateediter but nobody's commented on that yet: I'm really confused by it, tbh, and I'm not really sure how it relates to the topic at hand. But the table doesn't make sense to me, unless I'm misunderstanding it: in no sense is a district "bigger than" an authority (the district of Craven has a local authority, so they're the same size), nor a borough "smaller than" a council (the Borough of Harrogate has a council, so they're the same size). Broadly speaking, "district" is a term used for any lower-tier local authority (including unitary authorities) in England, and "borough" is an honorary status given to some districts (plus used in a different sense for the London boroughs). YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 21:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect: (changed vote, see below) The term is informal and not official, there is no legal or agreed upon definition, I believe WP:SYNTH is a concern, and there are not sources showing GNG. // Timothy :: talk 04:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see my comment below regarding redirect. // Timothy :: talk 13:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The analysis of UK regional groupings is ... Well .. different to how I would describe them and all those words fail to address how the city region is a distinct entity. Instead the UK reality is a mess of badly defined and inconsistent regional grouping that includes everything except city regions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Combined authority, on revisiting this. My views above still stand, but when I look more closely there really isn't any useful content to merge. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did consider a redirect to Combined authority, but because this is used informally, I couldn't determine if it was an appropriate redirect. Because it seems the use is not consistent, I didn't opt for redirect. I would support redirect if there is a consensus that this is appropriate, with greater due weight given to local editors. // Timothy :: talk 13:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the most plausible thing someone would be looking for when searching for "city region"; the other possibility would be Local enterprise partnership (like Leeds City Region, whose website is owned by the Leeds LEP). I'd suggest a "'City region' redirects here" hatnote on whatever target was chosen. On the other hand, I don't think straight deletion would be the end of the world either. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 13:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the target already specified. Since it seems like the best option. Although, I'd be fine with it being deleted also. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyanna's Champions for Children[edit]

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

essentially advocacy. The usual personal story., with the usual promotional coverage. WP is not a tabloid DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks the level of coverage needed to pass WP:GNG or a criterion such as WP:ORG. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization received a commendation and resolution by the Texas State Legislature [24]. Not every 503c, even those fighting noble causes, receives that. There is substantial local, regional and state level media attention when doing a BEFORE search. Nothing in WP:N says the coverage must be at a national or international level. It does receive mentions from national media outlets and organizations as well. The bottom line is that the amount of sources, both mentions and lengthy coverage, coupled with the resolution means it should be included. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide links to some of the media coverage? For some reason, my searches have come up empty, aside from what amounts to "here's a fundraiser"-type mentions in local media, so having that information would be helpful in potentially reassessing my position. Thank you in advance. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Keep in mind that there is often other information about the foundation and its effects in the community within those "here's a fundraiser" articles. As long as it is written about the foundation in a reliable/verifiable independent source then it counts. Wikipedia is not as concerned about the significance or content of the source written piece as much as whether the source is reliable or not and whether the foundation receives significant enough coverage in the piece or not. That is the only requirements. That's why we have an article on a guy who attached balloons to a lawn chair and took it for a flight.

These are three media sources, local, regional and national. There are plenty more secondary sources that give this charity significant coverage when searching. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

to have "received a commendation and resolution by the ___ State Legislature" merely shows an active PR agent, not actual significance. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements for notability say nothing about significance other than the more significant the more likely it is notable. However, significance is not a requirement. The only requirements for notability are that it receives significant coverage in reliable or verifiable secondary sources. The Texas State Legislature is a verifiable if not reliable secondary source. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the other sources above, The first is not the national CBS, but CBS Austin, their local coverage. The second, the Austin American, is a good city paper, but it is not a national paper--one could possibly argue it's regional. I cannot see the article. The third, Lubbockonline, which is certainly local, even says in its headline : "Life of local child affected by hydrocephalus" - (my italics).

we use the term "significance" to mean a lower level than notability. When I nominated it for CSD, I nominated only for G11, advocacy. not for G7, no indication of significance. It has some degree of local significance. That's enough to bring the discussion here, but not enough for incl sion in WP. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a subject is not significant to you does not mean it should not be included here in Wikipedia. All of the sources provided are verifiable independent sources that cover the subject significantly in the specific source, as opposed to simply mentioning the subject. That is what GNG says. Nothing else matters, period. Not your opinion and not mine. If there were no independent verifiable sources I would most likely agree with you. Because there are I disagree. GNG says nothing about local or national or international "significance". --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to my query above. The CBS Austin article barely mentions the charity, as it is primarily about her participation in Miss Texas Teen, and is ostensibly of the type of human interest story that local news is filled with. The Statesman article is literally the type of event/fundraising notice I mentioned above, and barely mentions the charity as well (caveat: it is paywalled, so I'm basing it on the OCR text of the link you provided). The Avalanche Journal article, while about the founder and namesake of the charity, does not even mention the charity itself. I fail to see how these sources show "significant coverage" per WP:GNG and thus I have decided to let my !vote above stand. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know what you are reading but the CBS article is completely about the pageant platform of Miss Teen Texas which is part of what the organization is about and picks out a little girl that the charity organization is helping. The Lubbock article is about the namesake of the Charity itself. It is telling you the backstory on why the organization was started, hence Cheyanna's direct name being mentioned. Keep your vote the same, that's your prerogative. We obviously have different views on the purpose of Wikipedia, what constitutes notability, per WP:GNG, and the inclusion of articles on notable organizations like this 503c charity. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This very argument is a perfect example of advocacy . Notability is not the only reason for deletion Advocacy that cannot be removed without destroying the article, or that makes up the larger part of the article, is an equally good reason. (As an example, I've just made an effort to clean up the article, by removing material based only on unreliable sources or not encyclopedic, not to destroy it but to do whatever could be done. It still leave the article as advocacy primarily. But since it's just as an example, I'm reverting for the time being to what it was before it worked on it. ) If we didn't follow this rule, Wikipedia would be not an encyclopedia, but a website for advertisements for notable things. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not for "article cleanup". The organization IS notable, even if regionally. That should be the only concern in regards to Wikipedia. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete they do good work, but not sufficiently notable for inclusion. I see no evidence of significant, in depth coverage. StarM 02:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CareCloud[edit]

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

Private medical IT shop. Generic. References WP:MILL. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGCRIT. scope_creep^Talk 01:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. Pure WP:ADMASK case. -Hatchens (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because an article is about a corporation does not make it "WP:ADMASK" or WP:MILL. The Boston Globe article linked in the article [25] is in-depth, independent, reliable, and a secondary source. I've also found this PCMag review of the software [26] which satisfies the above criteria as well. These are multiple sources that satisfy the conditions of WP:NCORP. If keep isn't an option this article should be merged instead into MTBC of which CareCloud is a subsidiary. Chess (talk) (please use ((ping|Chess)) on reply) 23:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is a press-release, the second an affiliated marketing skit, paid for. Both fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk#

I'm confused, how is the first one a press release? It's attributed to a Boston Globe staff writer and there's no indication in any way that it's a "press release". What are you basing this claim off of? How is the second an "affiliated marketing skit"? Are you trying to tell me that the review was paid for by CareCloud? Do you have any evidence of that whatsoever? And how do either of those sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH? The Boston Globe article went pretty in depth on how Care Cloud differs itself from other products by being a cloud based electronic health management system with an app and website as opposed to on-premises hosted health management systems. Likewise for the PCMag article which goes in depth on the software itself and aspects of this. Wikilinking policy and policy-adjacent essays is meaningless unless you're actually willing to explain how the policies are applicable here. Chess (talk) (please use ((ping|Chess)) on reply) 01:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is definitely a press-release. What indicates its a press-release is the smiling face, the comments, I love the city,” said Santal and the announcement, they are opening a new office in the city. It is routine PR. More so, it just an announcement, so fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. The second one is a 2-page review. It not much of a review to be honest. I've taken part in a real software product review. The output is usually very large report. This is a small consumer report that fails WP:PRODUCTREV. The company is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge appropriate content to MTBC. The references in the article fail WP:ORGIND as they are based on company announcements and/or interviews with company officers. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: agreed that just because an article is a company does not automatically make it "WP:ADMASK" or WP:MILL. It's time that editors start realizing that and really go into the sources and assess whether an article is notable or not. The acquisition is significant and I do think it warrants its own page given its notable company history. That being said, the "awards" section here is completely unnecessary (and outdated since the company no longer exists). If that section is rid of, I support Keep. --Jjj84206 (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Jjj84206 is a WP:SPA and has made few edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 08:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Scope creep, noted! Hatchens (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment Lets examine the references.

* Bloomberg]. This is a paid listing service. It fails WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND.

* Web health records firm expands to Boston Albert Santalo, founder and chief executive of CareCloud, said he was lured to Boston by the area’s health care and technology expertise and already has hired about 15 people here with a nice smiling picture. Essentially an announcement of moving. Fails WP:ORGIND.

* 15 things to know about CareCloud Taken straight from the website. Fails WP:ORGIND. Fails WP:SIRS.

* CareCloud Concludes 2014 With Rapid Growth and Product Innovation, Driven By Large Medical Groups “2014 was a transformational year for CareCloud,” said Albert Santalo, CareCloud’s Founder and CEO. “While we continued to deliver powerful solutions to support all medical practices, we expanded our presence among larger groups, bringing on patient care leaders such as Orange County Urology and Core Orthopaedic Medical Center Fails WP:ORGIND. A dependent source.

* Venture Capital Deals An announcement of investment. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital

* CareCloud takes $25.5M in debt financing to expand medical group data An announcement of investment. Fails WP:NCORP standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital

* Q&A: CareCloud CEO Albert Santalo reflects on year of fast growth, looks ahead Fails WP:ORGIND. A chat with the ceo.

* CareCloud Upgrades EHR Platform With Faster Charting Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance,

* CareCloud CEO: We may go public next year Another smiling ceo picture. Cloud-based health IT provider CareCloud may launch an IPO next year, CEO Albert Santalo said. Fails WP:ORGIND.

The rest of the references are the same, very poor run-of-the-mill business news that is either dependent failing WP:SIRS or WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND. There is no redeeming references in this article. scope_creep^Talk 08:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per scope creep's detailed analysis of the sources. This does not appear to be a notable company. ‑Scottywong | [chatter] || 01:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Barou[edit]

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

This individual seems to be fairly well-known as a writer and for having worked with Jean-Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault and other intellectuals. Still, the sources in the article do not demonstrate his own notability: This one was written by the subject himself and does nothing to show he's notable. This tells us much about the newspaper but nothing about the man. This is just a catalogue entry about a book. There are many, seemingly self-published sources about this person. What I would like to see is clearly reliable and independent evidence that he meets WP:GNG ~~or WP:AUTHOR~~. If he truly is an eminent figure in publishing, there would be a good deal of reliable coverage on him. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the below discussion, I am now convinced he has some claim to notability because of his involvement in the publication of Time for Outrage!. Since he would not otherwise be notable, I think a merge with the article on the book or a yet-to-be-created article on his publishing firm would be a good compromise. The firm has an article in the French Wiki and could well be notable per the coverage presented below. Maybe Brxdxe and Govvy can get behind this? Modussiccandi (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more sources. I realise the original article was a stub and not very fleshed out but after googling him and realising there was no Wiki page I was shocked - he has written many books/essays I have come across while reading for my degree. Hopefully the article is a bit better now as there are several notable sources in it, more people will add to it I'm sure.Brxdxe (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Brxdxe, thank you very much for participating in this discussion. I've had a look at the sources you provided. They confirm my impression that he is an influential publisher. But I'm still not quite sure that there is completely independent, significant covergae about him as an individual. The sources you provided mainly cover his publishing firm. The NY Times source is definitely reliable and contains some info about him. Might there be a source with more in depth about coverage him and not the books he published? Modussiccandi (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Most of the results are in French and as I am not a native speaker its been a bit tough finding sources - but I'll keep looking!Brxdxe (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep When I did a google search it seems mostly ways to buy his books to start with. But then I see he has published 29 publications per [27], then he is published with magazine contributions also, I would go for weak pass towards, WP:NAUTHOR. You have to do quite a deep google search, but there are some interviews and such. So weak keep for me. Govvy (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that there are enough sources now to keep the article. There are several news articles about his publishing house, his books, and some other sources providing biographical details. He's definitely notable! Anyway, I've done what I can :) Brxdxe (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brxdxe, I still have to disagree: the subject is not, as you say, "definitely notable". For that, he would have to pass WP:GNG with flying colours. We would need several reliable and independent sources that cover him in depth. I would agree with Govvy that the subject is closer to meeting WP:AUTHOR. Govvy, could you weigh in again and help identify which section of WP:AUTHOR he meets? In my view, he might meet 3. for having played a part in founding the magazine Libération. The requirement is that he played a "major role" in its creation. The Wikipedia article of this journal does not mention him, so I think it's fair to at least question how important he was in the foundation. The supposed source for this information defends Sartre for his late political activism and involvement with Maoism and traces his intellectual milieu in the final decade of his life. I cannot find in this source anything that tells me Barou played a part in founding Libération. The article mentions a journal called Cause du people, but it doesn't say whether the subject founded it. There is this article which talks about the journal's switch to non-profit. But it does not contain anything on Barou. If any of you could provide a quotation from a third-party source that tells me beyond doubt that he had a major role in co-founding Sartre's journal I am willing to change my mind. I'm not trying to be pedantic — if he is notable for co-founding the journal, there will be detailed third-party sources about this. As it is, criterion 3 is failed in my view. Now, criterion 4 which states that the subject must have received "significant critical attention". This could be satisfied by a review of his life's work from a reputable newspaper such as the Guardian etc. Again, if something is found, do post it here. I know there are lots of interviews and similar content available online and I'm not saying they can't be used. But they don't constitute the independent coverage needed to firmly establish notability. I also know the bar is lower of WP:AUTHOR but the fact that lots of sources exist does not automatically fulfil any of Thea criteria. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply #3 is what I am going on, I did say weak keep! I read [28] What I thought somewhat interesting was Washington Post picked up on it, not sure what was said as it's behind a paywall [29] I kinda gave up after that!! Govvy (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy, first let me say that my above comment was not primarily aimed at you. Rather, it was directed at Brxdxe who does not acknowledge that the subject is a borderline case. Since you and I agree the he is in the neighbourhood of meeting WP:AUHTOR, let's return to the sources. I read source No. 2 and the paywalled No. 3. It emerges from these tha Barou conducted an interview with Sakharov. As for No. 2, I do not see why this makes Barou notable. Yes he conducted an interview but so do many other journalists every day. As for No. 3, you are right in pointing out that the Washington Post picked up on the interview. However, the only coverage of our subject in that article is that he is "a free-lance journalist". The ones who criticises Sakharov were the Soviet newspaper Izvestia. So these two sources, in my view, do not establish notability because they are not significant coverage. I remember we were both involved in an AfD on a football club which I claimed was not notable. It later turned out that the club was notable because they had played in the FA vase. That was a simple fact and I was happy to change my mind. Now, in the present case, I think we do not have comparable evidence that tells us Barou was a major player in establishing the journal Libération. Given that he does seem to fail WP:GNG, that is the only way I can see him being notable with the sources presented so far. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I did a wee bit more research and it looks like you're right in that there are no credible sources that say he played a significant role in the founding of Liberation. I did find an interview where he discusses being an editor for Cause du people though, and how he was friends with Sartre. He did have a big role to play in the publishing of Time for Outrage and this does have - I'd say - sufficient media coverage and sources. There are several newspapers (Le Monde, The New York Times, The Independent, The Nation) that all mention him and his role as the editor/publisher of the manifesto. For me this constitutes as him meeting criterion three of WP:AUTHOR. I mean, I think it's true to say that he 'has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work' and that this work 'won significant critical attention.' I'm new to this, so thanks for pushing me to add more credible sources (the article is a lot more fleshed out now thanks to this conversation.)Brxdxe (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brxdxe, thanks for your work. Would you mind posting the links to the websites you mentioned into this discussion? The best way to do this is to copy the url into single square brackets, like this [30]. It's easier to discuss the merits of the sources when they can all be found in this discussion. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Here: Le Monde [31], The Independent [32], NY Times [33], The Nation [34]. And here's the interview [35], it's on page 260 of this PHD thesis. The New York Times article actually doesn't mention his name directly, just that Time for Outrage was published by a small publishing house owned by a couple - this couple is Barou and Crossman though, as evidenced by the other sources. Brxdxe (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll say what I think about the sources individually: The Independent article is about a book (Indignez vous!) which Barou's firm published. Barou is mentioned briefly as "the joint head of [a] small Montpellier-based publishing house". The New York Times article says a bit more about him, mainly that he is the co-owner of the publishing house Indigène. The Nation gives us an extract from the book. I'm not sure what this tells us about Barou, though, but that may be because I can't access the complete version. Le Monde, again, says that Barou and Crossman are the publishers. In light of this, you are right: he had a role in publishing the notable work Indignez vous!. I'm not sure he should have a stand-alone article given the lack of significant coverage in good sources on him, but I think he definitely merits some form of inclusion in Wikipedia. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your in-put. I get that he isn't the most widely sighted publisher ever, but surely if you remove articles based on this people end up completely forgotten? He is French, and so most of the notable press on him might not be easily accessible. He's also a radical, I don't think fame or notability is a big part of his agenda. I've seen much less fleshed out articles be kept on the site, I really think this one deserves to stay - and that isn't because I wrote it! He meets the criteria, if only just. I'd like to read what others think, although I think debating whether or not he merits his own article at this point is slightly pedantic seeing as he technically meets criterion 3. But that's just my opinion. I had to look him up for a course I'm doing the other week and I couldn't find a shred of information on him at first glance. If this article existed before I made it it would have helped my research. I made him one so that I could help others with theirs. Brxdxe (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my above !vote to merge, which is another form of keep. I agree it's pedantic to continue debating over this. The article will likely be kept in some form now. I think that is all that matters and I won't add any more comments here. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ModussiccandiI've created an article for the publishing house now, here: Indigène éditions (publishing house). Thanks for all the in-put. Brxdxe (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brxdxe, for creating the article. This discussion will formally be closed when an administrator comes by and decides what the outcome of the discussion was. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author has 1300+ library holding. --Gazal world (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily meets WP:GNG. There are plenty of sources available on Google News which can be added to the article to improve it. --KartikeyaS (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sogetel[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines as set out in WP:CORP. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked for sources much, but if the company has been around since 1892, you'd expect to find more than what is in the article now. They've only been named Sogetel for 40 of their 128 years since 1980. Have we tried looking for coverage under their previous name? Here's some coverage, for starters: [36] Vexations (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some food for thought :

The company was founded under the name "La Compagnie de Téléphone de Nicolet" in 1892 by a group of citizen;
In 1922, it was officially incorporated (http://www.sogetel.com/historique) and Henri-Napoléon Biron was then leading the group of shareholder.
Biron was, among many thing, Liberal deputy from 1939 to 1944 (http://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/deputes/biron-henri-napoleon-2085/biographie.html).
His son, Senator Michel Biron still control the family own company.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Biron)
Starting in the '70, the company change his name after starting acquisition of many other small independent company in Quebec.
After a pause a couple of year, it restart acquiring others in the 2000.
Sogetel in the only remaining privately own incumbent phone company in Quebec. Other incumbents in Quebec are public companies (Bell, Télébec, Telus and Cooptel - a coop).
Starting in 2009, Sogetel almost completed the process of rebuilding is network using optical fiber.
The french version of the page contains more details on his history https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogetel_(Canada)

(talk) 01:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you work for the company, Domger (talk · contribs)? Because this is the only article that you have significantly edited. Also, most of that list is irrelevant without citations to back some of it up. Who owns it, irrelevant. It's not my job to verify your claims. It's yours. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also - WP:VALINFO, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:OTHERLANGS, and WP:ITSOLD. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A significant organisation, and no doubt plenty of coverage in printed sources over the last 128 years. Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:CORP --Devokewater (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found several mentions in print newspapers via newspapers.com but most of these are related to a Spanish corporation. --KartikeyaS (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 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. After nearly two weeks, a relist, sock blocks, and protection, a consensus to delete has emerged, so I think this is ripe for closure. Broadly, participants are not convinced that the subject meets our inclusion criteria, but there is also a minority of opinions that boil down to WP:TNT. By comparison, most of the non-sock keep votes are relatively weak. Few go beyond simply asserting the subject meets the GNG, and for the couple that actually analyze the Farsi sources, participants generally did not find them convincing as shown by some editors changing from keep to delete. Thanks to everyone who participated through comments and cleanup. — Wug·a·po·des 23:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Farzin[edit]

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

Not notable. It's a paid article and we deleted it several times in fawiki. ARASH PT talk 22:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ARASH PT talk 22:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we blocked the article author and his sockpuppets on fawiki. ARASH PT talk 22:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is inflated with some passing mentions but on the other hand he did attract some genuine third party coverage for his roles and his accusations of corruption have received significant coverage. I haven’t ploughed through all the refs but the latter ones look to me like they make him a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has about 30 secondary sources, including iranian major news agencies. The person is notable in Iranian football, plus he has been assigned for the Rio 2016 Olympics and FIBA Basketball World Cup 2019 and some other major International sport events. The reason that This article is being considered for deletion, is that I created the article for this person in farsi wikipedia, but the same user (Arash.pt) deleted that immediately and blocked my user account! He even deleted my comment in Administrators' noticeboard. I believe that some users in farsi wikipedia are trying to make that project exclusive, it's a kind of mafia there. --Sajjadimanian (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Comments I was wondering if there is some indication he is being suppressed by the Iranian government and that there maybe more issues surrounding this person. I highly doubt this is paid editing, I disagree with the assumption this is not-notable. Govvy (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the General notability guideline (Significant coverage and secondary sources Independent of the subject)--31.2.137.149 (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC) — 31.2.137.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Solidly referenced to reliable sources—to the extent of passing WP:BLPSOURCES—and WP:ANYBIO. Furthermore, the nomination is flawed per WP:SKCRIT1 (and could be speedily closed): after all, what happens of fa-wp stays on fa-wp, and no Wikipedia project is bound by the actions (or otherwise) of a sister project. Secondly, paid editing is not yet a reason for deletion. Indeed, it is probably an argument to avoid in a discussion such as this. 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:3920:992F:79F9:176 (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC) — 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:3920:992F:79F9:176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment can anybody with a knowledge of Farsi please comment on the claims made/sources present? Giant Snowman 14:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: maybe post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran? It seems semi-active at least. 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:3920:992F:79F9:176 (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Three votes from IPs and a sockpuppet in one day! You can find anything about anyone in Iranian news agencies. Let's check the sources:

3 sources (inn, tabnak, yjc) about an instagram post.
11 sources about his employment in the media department of the Iranian basketball federation!
4 sources just for his previous job as a freelance photographer!

This guy is just paying to have some pages in the Iranian websites and Wikipedia. Govvy said that he is suppressed by the Iranian government that is not true. Actually, he is supported by the Iranian government and all the media coverage is from governmental and extremist news websites. ARASH PT talk 15:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Arash.pt: Just a reminder that accusations of sockpuppetry are considered WP:ASPERSIONS unless backed by diffs: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are... severe; you should withdraw those comments.

I have removed your other comment as a blatant BLP violations (per WP:BLPTALK: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate).

I suggest you leave an analysis of the sources to others, as you seem rather invested in this article and its fa-wp background.

@Bishonen: May advise further. 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:3920:992F:79F9:176 (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC) — 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:3920:992F:79F9:176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy Keep except notability guidelines, the article meets WP:SKCRIT. Unfortunately nominator user is trying to show that the references are invaluable, and he/she even doesn’t know the difference between FIBA and the Iranian basketball federation. The article subject (Iman Farzin) participated at the Summer olympics (assigned by the International Olympic Committee) which is a very different issue than supporting by the Iranian government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arteshesorkh (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable on English WP but may well be on Farsi. Article's a Farsi mess, there are no English sources and Farsi ones are questionable. He's not an Olympic participant, let alone medallist. Arguments are virtually illegible in English here. I worry about 4/5 cites for every statement like 'He is a human being'. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep' @Arash.pt: and Sajjadimanian what happens at fa-Wiki stays at fa-Wiki. It is slightly worrying that no English language sources at all are used in the article, but others have said that the sources in use seem to meet WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator user doesn't have any evidence to proofe that article is paid. Unfortunately in fa-wiki some editors event doesn't know about the notabilty guidlines , that's why this article with 30 references was speedy deleted in fa-wiki. I guess his Revelations about Carlos Queiroz and the Iran Football Federation could be the reason that some editors or some people are gainst him. by the way, article meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, includes valuable secondary references and there is no reason to be deleted. --MHosseinafshar (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have been dealing with Article and paid editor behind for quiet some times, though I agree what happens in fawiki should remain on fawiki but when a person is not notable in his own language while he is not international person this should mean something, this article should be speedy deleted and sockpupets and paid editors should be blocked Mardetanha (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No "!vote" from me, because I cannot read any cited source and don't trust machine translations. But a comment. He's in Category:Iranian photographers, presumably because the article describes him as a "freelance photographer,^[3][4][5][6]". Four sources, merely to demonstrate that he's a freelance photographer -- of what? Beach volleyball, restaurant interiors, weddings, automobile parts? We're not told. All we know of his photography is that four sources say he's a "freelance photographer" of something or other. And his photography is just one example of the way in which this article cites a lot of sources to say remarkably little. Is the article very undeveloped from the sources it cites, or are the sources perhaps very insubstantial? If the former, perhaps some of those people who've said "Keep" above would like to use these sources to say more about him. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I checked all references. The article pass WP:GNG due to the Significant coverage by Iranian media. Even his statement on his social media has been covered and published by many of Iranian media and agencies. All sources meet WP:RS, ISNA, Fars News Agency, Mehr News Agency, 90 TV, Iran Varzeshi newspaper, Tabnak, Varzesh3 and others are Reliable, secondary and independent from subject. Hoary He is a sport photographer and journalist, member of Iran National Beach Soccer team, and assigned for the Rio 2016 Olympics by the IOC. Other sources are covering his assignment by FIBA. I believe that this article even could be speedy keeped and pass WP:SKCRIT, because some reasons of deletion mentioned by some editors seems frivolous or vexatious nominations (like someone said: you can find anything about anyone in Iranian news agencies)!!! --AgentBarsam (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- AgentBarsam, I was merely asking about his photography. Even now, the draft says nothing about this. If he's a sports photographer, then what has been said about his sports photography, who has said it, and where? Meanwhile, your comment immediately above is more bulky than the sum of all your other surviving contributions to en:Wikipedia. Something about this seems rather odd, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is. -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nobody has adequately explained the significance of the sources and I cannot see it myself (as a non-Farsi reader). Nothing appears notable; it appears overly promotional and I am concerned by the number of new editors who appeared from nowhere to try and defend the article. If people can properly assess the sources and confirm GNG is met, please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giant Dear Editor, I'll try to explain you about the sources, hope I can make it clear for you: Here Varzesh3 and Mehrnews and Farsnews and here and Here the subject of news is about him, that is about his assignment by FIBA and his participation at the Basketball World Cup. Also his interview about the corruption of Iran Football Federation here here and his revelations about Carlos Queiroz can be found here Tabnak, here at Iran Daily. Plus his assignment for the Rio 2016 Olympic (as the mainj subject of the news) here HERE. Other reliable references are about his job information, and some news. Let me know if anything is still unclear for you. Thanks --Sajjadimanian (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although no significant English sources, the fa references show WP:GNG. Whilst the article needs some work, that shouldn't be a consideration for deletion. Agree with Mjroots, what happens on fa-wiki should not spill over here. --John B123 (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what kind of weak argument is this ? there is no significant source in english and there is signifanct source in farsi, we happen to be expert in the Farsi, we can read it and we all are long term users very much familiar with notablity and other guid lines? still you what happens in fa should in spill over, enwiki doesn't belong to anyone, it so for all of us, it is not like we are outsiders coming to enwiki Mardetanha (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mardetanha You are not the only one who can read Farsi (Persian). Don't try to cheat english editors with your false information. If there is a strong mafia of editors in fa-wiki, don't bring it here. Keep your opinion for your self and don't expand it please. WP:GNG is very clear in english, and in Persian too, there is no need to explain it to others! --Sajjadimanian (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

intersting now we need insults coming from sockpupets whom were blocked from fawiki, spreading their paid agenda to enwiki, Mardetanha (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm resisting the temptation to reach for the popcorn, but I suppose the best thing to do is keep this discussion on topic? Just a suggestion... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: Have to agree with you there, perhaps certain participants in this discussion need to read WP:ETIQ. --John B123 (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, it absolutely is not a requirement for an en.wiki article to have English language sources. Where they’re available that’s great, but where they’re not, we apply our sourcing policy as best we can to sources in other languages. Much of the current article is promotional fluff and can be cut out, e.g. that he’s a freelance photographer. It is still my view that refs 20-23 make him a WP:GNG pass. Ref 20 is to the website of the Football News Agency where Farzin is the subject of the article headline and the entire story is about his accusations. Ref 21 is the Itabnak website where Farzin’s accusations are again the subject of the news story. Ref 22 is to a similar piece in INN where again Farzin’s accusation are the headline and subject of the story. Ref 23 likewise in a piece by the Young Journalists Club. Nobody has put up an argument to show that these sources are not independent or not reliable. Were Farzin’s accusations just sour grapes? Maybe. But they seem to have been given pretty widespread coverage. The strongest case against the article I can see is that the subject may fail WP:BLP1E since in our terms the only genuinely notable thing about him is these accusations. There clearly are other sources for him dealing with other aspects of his career however, including multiple ones from the Mehr News Agency. So while the article can certainly be edited and stripped of refbombing there’s enough here of substance for me not to be comfortable with deletion. Mccapra (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

from what I can see from the sources he made some unsubstantiated accusation on his instagram that Iranian nation team coach is receiving bribe, this accusation didn't receive any attention, I dug it up, nothing found, none of the sources in the article are talking about him and discussing his importance or his role as photographer. Mardetanha (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a straightforward untruth that “none of the sources in the article are talking about him”. They are, as anybody with moderately good eyesight can see for themselves. I agree that there is nothing to suggest that he is notable as a photographer. There may well be no substance to his allegations and the whole thing may have blown over very quickly, which would strengthen the case for considering this to fail BLP1E. Mccapra (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are using machine translation and that is why what I understand is different from what you see is different, I didn't know this person before this AFD, couple of users in fawiki were offered some money to create article for him, we had a through discussion about this and result was he is not notable, now they have brought the team to enwiki, if he was notable I would be more than happy to have another more article about iranian person on enwiki but he is not, I read all sources, did more research on Farsi, Nothing, yes he was working for AFC and he was photographer, so what ? does anyone who travels to sport event is notable ? he throw some accusation to national coach team which didn't receive any media attention, anyhow I have said enough on this AFD Mardetanha (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I added Refs 3,26,27,28 and 29 that shows his notability as an accredited sports photographer. --Sajjadimanian (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)~~ Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone doesn't know this person, it doesn't mean that he is not notable! Notability is regarded to WP:GNG and other guidelines, not on your personal knowledge. Also his accusation to Carolos Queiroz has a significant media coverage (refs. 22,23,24,25,26,27). Seems user Mardetanha is trying to abuse non-farsi speaking editors by providing wrong information to them. --Thedunker66 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's perhaps worth noting that some contributors to this discussion appear not entirely straightforward. For instance IP 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:3920:992F:79F9:176 seems to be an SPA [37]. Both the Football News Agency and Young Journalists Club of Iran are state bodies, are they not? Do we consider Iranian state media to be a reliable source (genuine question)? And what, if any, relevance does this gentleman have outside the borders of Iran (of interest to anybody reading or using enwiki) or, indeed, of enduring notability INSIDE the borders of Iran? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: On the contrary, my edits here are an exception rather than the rule; my attendance was bought about by the highlighting of this case at AN/I. That in itself wouldn't have been sufficient for me to post—I don't think IP editing is usually particularly necessary and/or beneficial to AfD—but the outrageously poor—phenomenally outrageously poor, in fact—nomination statement (comprising as it did a litany of non-arguments, complaint and general assumptions) certainly needed addressing, particularly on account that it was made by a relatively inexperienced editor on this wiki (albeit one who is an admin on fa-wp, where one has to assume standards are rather different). HTH. 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:ED40:DFAB:9D73:1D7 (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: on your question about state media and other media closely state-aligned in Iran: there certainly are topics where we would need to be very careful about relying on them, but not in this article. Setting aside the question of photography, this article has two essential parts. Firstly, the subject held a number of official sports positions. The fact that he held them is supported by ‘official’ sources. The fact that he held these positions is not in doubt or question, but they certainly don’t make him notable and if that’s all there was in this article I’d vote delete. The second part is his public claim of corruption in official Iranian sports, which gained some attention in ‘non-official’ media. So for me the issues with this article aren’t about the sources, they’re about 1. Whether the coverage of the claims, taken together with the other parts of the article, make him notable (I think they do) and 2. Whether the article is the product of paid editing. I’ve no idea; the fa.wiki editors seem convinced there is, but no evidence has been produced to support this claim. To me, given that the article subject is a press officer, he’d need to be pretty rubbish at his job if he needed to pay someone to create this. A question that hasn’t been raised in this discussion so far is who would benefit from the deletion of an article that contained allegations of corruption in Iranian football. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added Refs 3,26,27,28 and 29 that shows his notability as an accredited sports photographer. --Sajjadimanian (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sajjadimanian Your bio says you are the "Director of AFC Social media (Persian)". AFC being the Asian Football Confederation. Sorry, your candour is commendable, but you should be nowhere near this topic (and particularly not articles you have edited such as 2019 AFC Asian Cup - even more so as a new account created in October and active principally since this article was flagged as not notable - a number of your edits here are clearly COI and everything you have said in this discussion and every edit to this article you have made should be, to my understanding of COI editing, struck. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The more this goes on, the less it adds up to me. We're told we deleted it several times in fawiki and we had a through discussion about this, yet looking at the page,[38] the deletions were M7 (equivalent to en-WP:A7) i.e An article about a real person who does not show the importance of the subject. M7/A7 is not discussed and the criteria is that the article doesn't show notability, as opposed to an AfD where it is discussed and the criteria is the subject is not notable, whether it's demonstrated on the page or not. I'm also getting concerned about the repeated, unsubstantiated claims of sockpuppetry and paid editing. This seems to me to be in contravention of the Arbitration Committee's decisions listed at WP:ASPERSIONS. --John B123 (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John, would you please check this page, these are CU blocks, I am really hopeful enwiki CU would also take a look at this IPs and accounts coming to this thread. Mardetanha (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a request for this to be looked into, however, I still think investigating after the accusations have been publicly made is not the way it should work. --John B123 (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, John B123 but this has come to enwiki after a long history at fawiki and looked from the very start like a mess. Getting to the bottom of that mess was beyond me and many others, given that it's a Farsi speaking mess of considerable duration and seeming complexity! The Google translate of the Check User Mardetanha shared is, by the way, a delight - some gems including, "Please get rid of my bald head. I do not like to see notifications related to you on my email. Wikifa is full of sick edemas who want to make up for their personal shortcomings here." and "It is far from justice and politeness to see everyone with one eye and call them sick." In between enwiki editors trying to make sense of this, you have some irate fawiki users, some seeming SPA IPs, certainly a COI editor and a lot of fur flying. I admit, it's beyond me to work out what's going on - other than that something is most certainly going on. If it took some wild accusations to have someone more experienced with the right tools to look into it and unravel it, I'd tend towards the view that the end eclipsed the means. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear en-wiki editors, please be informed that users blocking is the way for some fa-wiki admins to stop people whom are against them. They accuse you by unsubstantiated claims of sockpuppetry and paid editing, because they don't have any other way to stop you. To be clear, If you behave against them, they will block your account and they don't let you contribute anymore. This is how they control fa-wiki. User Mardetanha is an admin in fa-wiki, but unfortunately he lies here, he said they deleted this article after a discussion, but as you can check, the article in fa-wiki was speedy deleted, and anyone who contributed in has been blocked. Fortunately I live in USA and I'm not afraid of them, the mafia of fa-wiki don't have any access to me, but they blocked my account there in fa-wiki for ever without any evidence. I hope one day some one from Wiki foundation investigate fa-wiki and that day, everyone will understand about the dark reality of administration in fa-wki. With respect to all true editors of farsi wikipedia.--Thedunker66 (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC) Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another CU blocked account Mardetanha (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

losers usually trying to use dirtiest ways to pull down their enemies! here is not fa-wiki and you are not an administrator. you think anyone who is not agree with you is sockpuppetry or paid editor. you accuse anyone with unsubstantiated claims and you don't have any evidence. Sadly You are a liar and I'm sorry for fa-wiki because you are an administrator there ! by the way, WP:GNG is very clear, maybe you don't like to see! --Sajjadimanian (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC) Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Of the current "Keep" !votes, one is the article creator, two are SPA IPs, (at least) two are sockpuppets CU-blocked on FA-wiki, and (at least) one appears to have been canvassed (did not edit EN-wiki until this AFD was filed). Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So that just leaves me then..... Mccapra (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Softlavender, unsubstantiated claims are something usual in fa-wiki. there is no evidence, before investigations done, it is not fair to accuse someone. fa-wiki is another project and they (fa-wiki mafia) don't let independent editors to contribute there. If one editor (who lied here and everyone can see) has problem with the subject of article or anyone else, it's his problem, not the article! After all, WP:GNG is very very clear and I honestly believe this article certainly pass notability guidelines. --Sajjadimanian (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjadimanian, since you are one of the users blocked for sockpuppetry on FA-wiki, your opinion does not carry much weight here. And you have a COI with this subject, since you are the "Director of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) social media (Persian)" [39]. Your accusations of other editors only exacerbate your own problems. Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, they blocked my account in fa-wiki without any evidence, even without any investigations! Then, here is based on Notability Guidelines, not fa-wiki. An admin of fa-wiki who voted "delete" is a liar, he lies here in front of all involved editors ( we deleted it several times in fawiki and we had a through discussion about this, yet looking at the page,[40] the deletions were M7 (equivalent to en-WP:A7) i.e An article about a real person who does not show the importance of the subject This shows that fa-wiki admin Mardetanha is lying. I have nothing to say more, everything is clear and fortunately here is a different project than fa-wiki. --Sajjadimanian (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 new reliable sources from Etemad Newspaper added (refs. 25 and 26) regards.--Thedunker66 (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject meets WP:GNG. --KartikeyaS (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hopes that more editors with an established enwiki editing history will weigh in. There has been some productive discussion about whether available sources satisfy GNG or not and further discussion of that type might help this to reach consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep: Meets WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. - Roger editor (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first references (1 to 9) shows that he was a sport photographer and interpreter; References "10,11,12,13,15,18,19,20,21 and 28" are clearly the main subject of reliable sources. References 32 and 33 are about him as the main subject in title, which is about his responsibility in Rio 2016 Summer Olympic Games. References 22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31 are about his revelation about the corruptions in Iran National football team; references 34,35,36 and 37 mentioned about his photo contest award in 2007; then Certainly pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. All contents are very clear.--Thedunker66 (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Sock Le v!v ich 23:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete as per Mardetanha and the other native farsi speakers who can attest to the reliability, or rather lack of reliability of the sources and lack of coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ for reasons cited by User:Roger editor and User:Thedunker66. Meets WP:GNG. WP:Preserve and WP:Not paper. Further, we are here suffering from language-related Systemic bias at Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thedunker66 canvassing, User:Roger editor blocked and a number of concerns about other contributors to this AfD expressed above by Softlavender and now we are 'suffering from language-related Systemic bias' at enwiki? There's not one single English language source for this person and no consensus, it would appear, as to the reliability/relevance of any Farsi source. Why should this person be notable at enwiki? Why? He was apparently not even notable at fawiki... And his supporters here are a voluble, but deeply dodgy, lot. IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ad hominem argument about the voters, even if true, does not change the notability of the subject. I stand by my !vote. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how is it ad hominem when both are literally blocked for it?!!? Praxidicae (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen To be honest, I liked your concern about language-related Systemic bias at Wikipedia, I do share this concert with you but the solution is not to create an article for those who are not notable but help those deserve, I did a lot of searching before coming to AFD, long before this article created, we have been dealing with these people. we should stand united in front of those who wanted to use Wikipedia to promote themselves. Mardetanha (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Consensus. This article is a Dead letter. Opposing this is pointless. Like seeking recounts and filing lawsuits in the 2020 United States presidential election. It can be done; it will not change the outcome. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, esp. later citations show SIGCOV in RS/IS. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE with prejudice. I have been canvassed about this article by Iman Farzin personally on an external forum, and lied to. This person does not deserve a : vanity page. As moderator of the external forum, as soon has he reads my replies he will be banned, and out of principle I believe that his actions on this AFD (and previous ones) have been in bad faith. Timmccloud (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: This AFD gets more and more unbelievable by the day. That external forum I told you about? He just tried to sockpuppet into the forum under a different name! That attempt failed btw. Did I mention DELETE with prejudice, or should I be requesting a SPD due to all the abuse and end this misery immediately? Timmccloud (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Praxidicae and Timmccloud. The conduct surrounding this AfD, including voting by sockpuppets and IP with no or few prior edits, and the alleged personal canvassing by the subject on an external forum, is troubling, to say the least. Cbl62 (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:SIGCOV, a subject must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; this is not the case here Spiderone 20:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dubious notability, and was intended to be a promotional piece for the subject. -FASTILY 21:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prax. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject has held a number of jobs and has made certain allegations but these alone do not give the subject a pass of our notability standards so we rely on sources, which I can read sufficiently, courtesy of Chrome, to see there is no significant coverage, no in-depth coverage, of the man himself. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has caused tremendous disruption across multiple Wikipedias. The sock vote stacking in this AfD is just one example of manipulation and blatent violations. Lady Justice is blindfolded and so should a vote be, but this level of disruption is beyond the pale. GNG is a guideline not a policy (I have no opinion if it passes GNG or not). Calling on WP:IAR (policy) specfically WP:COMMON-sense to put an end to the disruption. -- GreenC 14:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have some sympathy with this POV. Article's not notable anyway and the whole thing's been a disruptive time suck for very little discernable return. Nobody on enwiki cares who he is - apparently nobody of integrity on fawiki does, either. Supporters so far have been bulked up by socks, canvassers and cutpurses/the great blocked in general. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this has taken far more of everybody's time than the end result justifies and agree with the comments about the socks. However, I don't think that the "delete" side coming over from fa-wiki have covered themselves in glory either. --John B123 (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I didn't mean to beatify through omission. Still believe delete is the way forward, but that very pattern of behaviour you refer to John B123 gives me pause to worry about that course. Actually, I pity the closer... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandermcnabb, have to take my hat off to whoever is brave enough to trawl through all this and close it! --John B123 (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this whole issue with this AfD a mile off and I posted about it to WP:AN a while back, it's odd all these delete votes, I don't think that the sources have truly gone through a review, people seem to be avoiding that because of the language barrier. However 37 sources in Farsi, is still 37 sources regardless of the language, the article is heavily over-sourced and that doesn't help. English sources seem to be flat. Yet I still don't see any evidence of paid editing here. All I see is shenanigans from both sides, one starting with the rather oddity of deleting what looks like a possibly valid article for the Farsi language wikipedia, the next coming over to the en.wiki and starting again. Govvy (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a total of maybe 10 sources if we pair down the ones that are blatantly copied from the others and even less (around 2) if we remove the press releases. Most of the sources are literal gossip blurbs that were never substantiated about accusations against Carlos Queiroz, which is ironic considering our own article makes no mentions of those unsubstantiated claims. The accusations of language bias here are laughable, considering we have several native Farsi speakers and it appears that those casting aspersions aren't assuming good faith. And to allay all the ridiculous bad faith claims that us "delete voters" didn't do an adequate before, see source assess below:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://play.fiba3x3.com/players/d4adb813-e19d-4d49-aa6a-664dda0a18f7		~ for primary info possibly	just a listing	✘ No
https://www.mehrnews.com/news/4950552/%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%B3%D9%82%D9%88%D8%B7-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%87-%D9%BE%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%AA%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%B4%D8%B1%DA%A9%D8%AA-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%87-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A2%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87	it's independent in the context that it's not written by him/his affiliates but is likely partially a press release		it's a single mention of him by way of a quote	✘ No
https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1393/12/10/670898/%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%AA-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%AA%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%B3-%D8%AF%D8%A8%DB%8C/photo/9			it's a single photo that was taken or provided by him	✘ No
https://www.isna.ir/news/8712-11573/%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%8A-4-%D8%B9%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3-%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%82%D9%87-%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3-%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%87-%D8%A8%D9%87%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%81%D9%8A	its basically a press release	~ for primary information, that he was a contestant in a contest	a single name drop with a list of other people who were failed contestants in a contest	✘ No
http://www.doorbin.net/news/?p=121		i don't know what doorbin.net is but it isn't reliable	a single passing mention	✘ No
https://www.farsnews.ir/news/8808220796%20%20%20%20/%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%8A%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A-%D8%AC%D8%B4%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%87-%DA%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%85-%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%AF	press release		just says he came in second or third place for a non-notable photography contest	✘ No
https://www.farsnews.ir/news/8708240524%20%20%20%20/%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%82%D9%87-%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%86%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%AF	more or less the same as the 5th source and others, it's a rehashed press release about coming in second place in a contest			✘ No
https://www.magiran.com/article/2356860			as far as I can tell this doesn't mention the subject	✘ No
https://www.magiran.com/article/2357005			in the context of this subject it meets none of IRS and is a single passing mention	✘ No
https://www.varzesh3.com/news/1610178/%D8%AD%D8%B6%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%81%DB%8C%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%87%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B4-%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%85%E2%80%8C%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B3%DA%A9%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84			this is a quote of a quote by him	✘ No
https://www.mehrnews.com/news/4611634/%D8%AD%D8%B6%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%81%DB%8C%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%87%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B4-%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B3%DA%A9%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84	same as 10, almost word for word			✘ No
https://www.farsnews.ir/news/13960823001977/%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B2%DB%8C%D9%88%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%81%DB%8C%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%A8-%D8%B4%D8%AF	press release about election as ED			✘ No
https://www.mehrnews.com/news/4146167/%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B2%DB%8C%D9%88%D9%86%DB%8C-FIBA-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%A8-%D8%B4%D8%AF	same as #12			✘ No
https://www.farsnews.ir/news/13970621001307/%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%87-%D9%81%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%AA%DB%8C%D9%85%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B3%DA%A9%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88-%D9%81%DB%8C%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%BE%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%B1%DA%AF%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B4%D8%AF	all it says is that he was present at a game, this is basically a press release			✘ No
http://www.mardom-news.com/news/104333/%D8%AD%D8%B6%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%81%DB%8C%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D9%87%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B4-%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B3%DA%A9%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84	same as #10, 11			✘ No
http://www.fiba.basketball/news/U-S-basketball-players-become-stars-in-Iran-s-professional-league			press release, single quote	✘ No
https://www.farsnews.ir/news/13900615001054/%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%A1-%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%85-%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%86-%DA%A9%D9%86%D9%81%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%81%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%A2%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%A7-%D9%88-%D8%B5%D8%AF%D8%A7-%D9%88-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%B7%D8%B1%D9%81-%D8%B4%D8%AF			a single quote from an interview, says nothing about Farzin	✘ No
https://90tv.ir/news/%D8%A2%D8%AE%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%86-%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A6%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B2%DB%8C%D9%88%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D9%81-%D8%B3%DB%8C	?	?	? 404, no idea	? Unknown
https://www.mehrnews.com/news/4893232/%D9%85%D8%AA%D9%87%D9%85-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%86-%D9%81%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%81%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%B2%DB%8C-%D8%B9%D8%AC%DB%8C%D8%A8-%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA	all quotes from an interview			✘ No
https://footballi.net/news/r/261865/%D8%A2%D8%AE%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%86-%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A6%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B2%DB%8C%D9%88%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D9%81-%D8%B3%DB%8C			just basic quotes	✘ No
https://footballi.net/news/r/534495/%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B8%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%82-%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D9%81-%D8%B3%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AA%D9%87%D9%85-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%86-%D9%81%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%81%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%B2%DB%8C-%D8%B9%D8%AC%DB%8C%D8%A8-%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA	see above			✘ No
https://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/1011186/%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A8%D8%B2%D8%B1%DA%AF-%D8%A8%D9%87-%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B4-%D8%AF%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AA-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2%DB%8C%DA%A9%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%AA%DB%8C%D9%85%E2%80%8C%D9%85%D9%84%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%BE%D9%88%D9%84	just a quote from his instagram			✘ No
https://www.inn.ir/news/2289/%d8%aa%d9%87%d9%85%d8%aa-%d8%a8%d8%b2%d8%b1%da%af-%d8%a8%d9%87-%d8%b3%d8%b1%d9%85%d8%b1%d8%a8%db%8c-%d8%a7%d8%b3%d8%a8%d9%82-%d8%aa%db%8c%d9%85-%d9%85%d9%84%db%8c	it's just a quote from his instagram	~		✘ No
https://www.yjc.ir/fa/news/7537748/%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%B3%D9%86%DA%AF%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%B9%D8%B6%D9%88-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%82-afc-%D8%A8%D9%87-%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B3-%DA%A9%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B4-%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3	same as all the last 10 or so sources, it's just a quote of his instagram page	~	this is the equivalent of gossip - one guy alleges something on Instagram, nothing comes of it	✘ No
http://www.etemadnewspaper.ir/fa/Main/Page/1687/8/%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%B2%D8%B4			this is the exaact same as the one below this.	✘ No
http://www.etemadnewspaper.ir/fa/main/detail/157701/%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%AE%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D9%BE%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA-%D9%BE%D9%88%D9%84-%D9%85%D9%84%D9%8A%E2%80%8C%D9%BE%D9%88%D8%B4-%D9%85%D9%8A%E2%80%8C%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%AF	like the last few sources, it's just the same gossip from an Ig post			✘ No
https://www.magiran.com/article/4110484			almost word for word the same as the last dozen or so sources	✘ No
http://www.armanmeli.ir/fa/news/main/300089/%D8%BA%DB%8C%D9%80%D9%80%D9%80%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%80%D9%80%D9%80%D9%87	more insta gossip			✘ No
https://theworldnews.net/ir-news/thm-bzrg-bh-khyrwsh-d-wt-bzykhn-bh-tymmly-bpwl	just the same as 22, copied and even says as much at hte bottom			✘ No
http://www.shafaf.ir/fa/news/513354/%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A8%D8%B2%D8%B1%DA%AF-%D8%A8%D9%87-%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B4-%D8%AF%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AA-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2%DB%8C%DA%A9%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%AA%DB%8C%D9%85%E2%80%8C%D9%85%D9%84%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%BE%D9%88%D9%84			word for word the same as several others	✘ No
https://www.tarafdari.com/node/1773368			same as the rest	✘ No
https://www.farsnews.ir/news/13950521000774/%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%B2%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%AA%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B8%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%BE%DB%8C%DA%A9-206	same as the first few dozen sources about him travelling to Switzerland - it's a press release			✘ No
http://www.iscanews.ir/news/871192/%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B2%DB%8C%D9%88%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%81%DB%8C%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%A8-%D8%B4%D8%AF	press release, same as one of the first sources			✘ No
https://www.akkasee.com/news/1387/9016/%d8%aa%d9%82%d8%af%db%8c%d8%b1-%d8%a7%d8%b2-%d8%a8%d8%b1%d8%aa%d8%b1%db%8c%d9%86%e2%80%8c%d9%87%d8%a7%db%8c-%d8%b9%da%a9%d8%a7%d8%b3%db%8c-%d8%af%d8%b1-%d9%85%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%b3%d9%85-%d8%af%d9%88%d8%b1%d8%a8%db%8c%d9%86-%d9%86%d8%aa/			press release, same as #6	✘ No
https://chiilick.com/%d8%aa%d9%82%d8%af%db%8c%d8%b1-%d8%a7%d8%b2-%d8%a8%d8%b1%d8%aa%d8%b1%db%8c%d9%86%e2%80%8c%d9%87%d8%a7%db%8c-%d8%b9%da%a9%d8%a7%d8%b3%db%8c-%d8%af%d8%b1-%d9%85%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%b3%d9%85-%d8%af%d9%88/	same as 6 and 34			✘ No
https://www.magiran.com/article/1744447	same as 6, 34 and 35			✘ No
https://www.isna.ir/news/8708-14560.80563/%D9%85%D9%87%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%88-%D8%A2%D8%B1%D8%B4-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%B1%DA%AF%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%87-%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%88%D9%85-%D8%AC%D8%B4%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%87-%D9%8A	same as 6, 34 and 36			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Praxidicae (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I thought I saw a weak keep last time, but I found it a bit hard to analyse the sources correctly. Then it felt like all hell went loose on here! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked what Praxidicae posted here as a native speaker and I can confirm it is correct and the assessment was fair Mardetanha (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a lot of time this morning cleaning up this article, I've removed the accusations about Queiroz and the federation as they are unsubstantiated and only based on press releases, I've also removed nearly 20 sources because they were identical to the others. There's still more to go but my eyes are tired. Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is one hell of a lot of work to take us to what is increasingly looking like a dead cert "Delete"... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is, it was a colossal time sink but it appears its needed given the ridiculous accusations here and the fact that many keep voters did not look at the actual quality of sources instead of quantity. The remaining items are still all based on press releases and passing mentions. None of which qualify for an article. Praxidicae (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly non-notable, a minor official -- if that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't read Farsi; I haven't looked at the sources, but only at what the article says on its face. WP:REFBOMBING cannot cloud that, and even suggests that further searching is unnecessary - if the partisans can't find anything worth citing, it probably doesn't exist. As to the assertions of notability - words fail me. Translator for a beach soccer team? former employee of FFIRI? press officer? won 2nd prize in an insignificant photography competition? Gimme a break. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG; this isn't quite WP:A7, but it's damclose to it. Narky Blert (talk) 21:27, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup after George Floyd protests[edit]

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

This is a very trivial aspect of the protests with very little information about the cleanup itself. There is absolutely zero reason for this to have its own page. Songwaters (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People clean up after floods, earthquakes, rioting, forest fires, Superbowl celebrations, etc. This is right up there with Drying after washing. Also, "trivial" (WP:TRIVIALCAT) only applies to categories, not articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to George Floyd protests, depending on whether there's anything worth preserving. This topic clearly doesn't have legs to stand by itself. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Any significant sourced details can be included in the appropriate article. There is no valid rationale for this to be its own article and there is no purpose for articles about the "Clean up after [name of event]" when the details can easily fit ito the event itself. // Timothy :: talk 08:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK and WP:SOAP, besides WP:MILL. Please folks, this is not needed and is a fork of the existing articles. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flatotel Hotel[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 02:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NBUILD per nom and does not appear to have had any historical significance or heritage listing Spiderone 08:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of standing out. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Business Today[edit]

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

no third party sources for this lobbying organization. Most of the links cannot be accessed, but they presumably consist only of a mention of the lecture the subject of the link gave there. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RPRGM. A cursory Google search yielded no results. It is very likely that this show is no longer in production, and did not gain much attention when it was. KidAd talk 06:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the radio show. Easily fails WP:RPRGM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan Democratic Firgue[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 01:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing really here and no sources provided. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:33, 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 Merge. Consensus that these are not notable but there is some agreement to merge into UK Open article for the year as an alternative to deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2010 UK Open Qualifier 1[edit]

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

The above article(s) describe minor darts events. Those are held just for the players, no Television coverage. Thus they don't get mentioned or noted in many secondary sources but the PDC website or darts databases. Also the bracket format, not used by any of the aforementioned sites, makes the articles huge and incomplete, because often the first round is not included and there is no detailed commentary on much of what happened during the events. MWright96 (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MWright96 (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; only coverage at this level is via primary sources and patchy routine results reporting. Nothing in-depth. Fails NEVENT, GNG, etc. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge by year I think these could be benefited in being merged per year ("2010 UK Open Qualifiers") with a summary. And like top 16 of each? I think they make a better collective than individual articles. If people think that is a poor idea, then I propose redirect to the appropriate "201X PDC Pro Tour" page. DLManiac (talk) 06:29, 30 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 01:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Only primary and trivial coverage=does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTWHATEVER=delete all. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge These articles may not merit notability by themselves, but merging them by year would be the best option to keep the content on Wikipedia without deleting. Dswitz10734 (talk) 17:19, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phreesia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP.Company profiles, press releases and churnalism. scope_creep^Talk 00:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is written in promotional tone but it is a notable company. It has references from Venture Beat, RT News etc. Also listed in the New York Stock Exchange. Bretalins (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bretalins Spiderone 21:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've edited to remove promotional content, but I think that remaining cites and other coverage readily available on Google for this $1.75 billion company all demonstrate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. multiple independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That are not independent sources, all of them apart of one, fail on WP:NCORP either paid promotion, fail on corpdepth or on orgind as dependent source. However, the fact that listed, is the only reason worth keeping. Certainly the references don't. scope_creep^Talk 01:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It just went public; I'm inclined to give it a bit more time instead of deleting right now. But I can't locate any very good sources, so I'm not too enthused about keeping either. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Javalquinto-Lagos[edit]

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

Not notable. Most references are passing mentions of the subject as a columnist or on papers, but do not prove his notability. Page created by blocked account, apparently single-purpose account. A few weeks ago, he announced a run for the next Presidential election, which is why I found out about this article because he is a total unknown businessman. In fact some newspapers used the name "The Unknown Candidate" and his tweets regarding his candidacy have less than 100 likes (he even complains that media didn't cover his launch event). Although someone running for President is noteworthy, this businessman is not because he just announced, he hasn't even gathered the signatures required to run as an independent. B1mbo (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. B1mbo (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. B1mbo (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. B1mbo (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBIO while considering contribution towards the education sector for public interest.

~~Comments: Submitted article needs to be improved while considering guidelines as it reads like a resume. --Roger editor (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 14:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are a couple sources which appear to cover him from before his presidential run (metodista and puranoticia) and another interview, and a possible argument he passes WP:NPROF which I will accept if someone argues for that well, but on the whole, I don't think there's enough significant coverage of him (excluding the presidential run) to maintain an article after doing a Chile-specific search, and the article itself is written promotionally. I'm a weak delete because we're in a grey zone - he's not at zero notability - but it's not enough IMO. SportingFlyer T·C 23:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Puranoticia is not really a reliable source to be honest and the source of the Methodist University is about a lecture he gave -which I don't makes him relevant-. Probably the only one that can be considered as a serious and noteworthy source is La Segunda but is just one interview about his work with Mohammed Yunus. [41]. --B1mbo (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Linkedin page. Geschichte (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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