Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 4
![]() |
- 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 Bianconi–Barabási model. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Bose–Einstein condensation (network theory) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe this page should be deleted on the following grounds: 1. Overly narrow overlap of three articles (Bianconi–Barabási model, Bose-Einstein condensation and Fitness model (network theory)). 2. Overly technical - hard to understand even for people with familiarity with the subject. 3. Notability - subject is very niche even within network science. 4. Largely already covered by the articles listed in point 1. Fractalfalcon (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note, this article was previously up for deletion in 2011 but was deemed a keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose–Einstein condensation: a network theory approach. However, since the original discussion the Bianconi–Barabási model page was added covering largely the same material. In my view, the new article covers most of the material in this article and is better written than the current article. --Fractalfalcon (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Weak merge with Bianconi–Barabási model - although I very helpfully won't opine in which direction; but there is a fair amount of overlap, and having two extensive articles that split the difference seems unnecessary. - I don't agree that there are any notability concerns. The titular paper has 889 cites, many of which consist of not insubstantial treatments in heavy hitters (10k+ cites) such as [1] and [2]. That's definitely good enough for us. And as for being overly technical, well, by that measure we could junk all of WP's modeling theory coverage. There's actually more legible prose in here than in most articles of that type. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ehhhhh.... merge with Bianconi–Barabási model. It makes sense to explain a phenomenon exhibited by a model in the article on that model. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge. I guess in hindsight I'm convinced a straight deletion is overkill. Definitely this merged into Bianconi–Barabási_model though. Would be unusual to describe the model in the page for the phenomena. I personally would also advocate deleting Bianconi–Barabási_model#History which I think verges on self promotion and is not well sourced. Fractalfalcon (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge; ... I find the information in this article on condensation much clearer than the merge article, although there is some overlap. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Empire AS Talk! 18:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Longkam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Under WP:NEXIST, I don't believe this article satisfies notability requirements; the only sources I've been able to find are either maps or weather information, which combined do not qualify as "significant coverage". Halfadaniel (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Generally populated settlements have been considered de facto notable, because one core part of Wikipedia's remit is to function as a gazetteer. Googling for sources where the language uses a non-Roman script doesn't always work well. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:NGEO "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." I believe this criteria is met, and do no believe any one is questioning that this is a "Populated, legally recognized place" Jeepday (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Stephanie Haim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have improved the article from being an unsourced stub to now a stub with two sources. I still don't think that there is enough there to show a passing of WP:GNG especially considering the fact that Haim does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. We have a profile page on the website of the football governing body. The same source then reports on her winning an award while playing in the local leagues. A Proquest search results in an article reporting on the same thing. This is not the level of notability required to pass GNG, in my opinion. Spiderone 22:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet GNG, it is far past time we removed articles that do not meet this bare minimum requirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Bassivity Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possibly non-notable company. Only 6 hits on Google news, all of them 1 sentence mentions. Page has been tagged with 4 notices expressing the lack of notability. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not a notable record label. If someone wants a project that will take a long time, just start going through articles on record labels and try to either find enough sourcing to justify keeping them or nominate them for deletion. This is one of the cases where we have the largest grouping of undersourced articles, second only to cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Only visible in very brief listings at industry databases plus its own social media pages. Does not satisfy the requirements at WP:NCOMPANY or for that matter WP:EXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete — Per rationale by nom, Johnpacklambert & Doomsdayer520 respectively. Celestina007 (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, JPL and Doomsdayer. Non-notable label. The interwikis doesn't contain any independent, reliable sources either, might I add. (The Serbian page cites lots of sources, but upon closer inspection, they are not notable, as many of them are unreliable databases and similar sites.) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: as above, not a notable label. References do not give notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above; I also think that the notability of its subsidiary Bassivity Digital is highly questionable Spiderone 13:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Charlie Cowie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Players appearing in the Scottish Championship this season no longer get the presumption of notability through WP:NFOOTBALL as per WP:FPL.
In terms of WP:GNG, there are four paragraphs in this news source on his debut. He then gets name checks in Daily Record, Fife Today and BBC. In my view, not enough coverage in multiple sources for GNG at this moment. Spiderone 22:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable 16-year-old football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - As it stands does not currently meet notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I see enough sources in one google search to pass GNG in my opinion. The article is perfectly structured, nothing wrong with it and we have draft space for a reason which you all seem to have forgotten. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The only one that I found that was more than a passing mention was the DNG24 one. Even the BBC one doesn't really address him in depth. I wouldn't oppose draftifying but my understanding is that we only tend to do that if the subject is playing in a fully pro league and would be likely to pass NFOOTBALL soon Spiderone 15:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Shahin Abbasian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Until they actually play for Gol Gohar Sirjan, they don't pass WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 TT me 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 22:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - sources do not establish notability; this is the only one with anything even close to in-depth coverage. Some of them, such as Soccerpunter actually prove that he is not notable. Fails WP:GNG. We should wait until he passes WP:NFOOTBALL before creating an article on him again. Spiderone 22:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Veaceslav Stăvilă (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unsourced stub about a historian, which literally just states that he exists, the end. As always, making a person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia requires more than just saying that he exists -- notable awards for his work, third party critical analysis of his significance, etc. -- but nothing like that is present here. It bears note that the article has recently been blanked, without explanation or discussion, by an editor with the username of "Veac stavila" (obvious WP:COI) -- but if I look back at the state of the article before it was blanked, it wasn't appreciably better: all it ever contained was one additional sentence stating that he held a role on a committee, followed immediately by a contextless, unfootnoted WP:LINKFARM of external links to mostly primary sources rather than reliable or notability-supporting ones. And while there's an article on the Romanian Wikipedia, it's longer but not any better sourced, so we can't just pull over sources from there and call it a day either. His committee role simply isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more substance, and a lot more sourcing, than any version of this article has ever shown. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I found an entry for a book he published, "Recea Străşenilor" (2009), in some sort of Moldovan national bibliography, but with no more detail than that. The Romanian-language Wikipedia article on him lists many more, but some of them may be self-published and the article makes him sound like some sort of amateur genealogist rather than a scholarly historian. In any case, that's not enough. Even for a book author, we need in-depth reviews about multiple books, not merely their existence. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete — no indication the subject fulfills the criteria set out by WP:PROF or any other relevant policies. - Biruitorul Talk 19:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - this BLP is completely unsourced, and there just isn't enough out there to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Moldova (where the subject is listed, but not linked. Before this was reduced to a complete stub, this was the main statement in the article. This article has a list of members. It was established by presidential decree and the members are described as "doctors", suggesting the subject is an academic. The COI intervention, probably by the subject, suggests that he does not want a WP article on him. While that is not a reason for deletion, we should accede to his wish. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was User-fy. The page creator agrees that this was not suitable as a draft for mainspace, and wants to continue working on it in their userspace. Moving to User:MIDI/Beatles performers. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- List of people who performed on Beatles recordings/Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Incomplete (A-K only) content fork of the existing List of people who performed on Beatles recordings, which seems to exist solely to reformat the exact same information in table form instead of bulleted-list form. However, creating multiple articles just to present the exact same list of the exact same information in different formats is not a thing we do -- if a table is desired, then the existing list needs to be reformatted as a table rather than having a bullet-list and a table-list coexisting as separate pages. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Userfy to encourage completion, seeing as how the nominator appears to have plenty of time to play around on Wikipedia but is evidently not interested in this. Comparing the two pieces of content, the table is the superior means to deliver this information. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- As creator I agree with this work-in-progress being userfied – afterall, the intention of this table was to be a draft (though I appreciate that per WP:SP#Disallowed_uses this should have either been created in a different namespace). I'm happy to do the (uncontroversial) move assuming that's how the AfD goes! MIDI (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete just having a small role on a soundtrack or reccording is not a major enough thing to justify a long free standing list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy. It's up to editors to determine whether to also merge something from the history. Sandstein 16:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- USS Lillie B (SP-1502) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A motorboat that was leased by the US Navy for a grand total of 138 days, saw no action during that time. Even the DANFS entry is pitifully short and not really enough to establish notability on its own, imo. A google search brought up no other coverage. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy, where it is included appropriately in the list. If this craft had been commissioned, it would be an automatic keep - commissioning establishes notability - but as the craft is only described as "leased", in the absense of contradictory sources it seems clear it was never commissioned, and uncomissioned small patrol craft that aren't otherwise satisfying GNG are by precedent deleted or redirected. Logical redirect target and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect as above. A quick check shows Ships' Data, U.S. Naval Vessels (1918) entry, sometimes a lead to a civilian history of interest, is largely blank. Palmeira (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect per the above comments. I see no indication that this passes GNG. Parsecboy (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge, but wait. I cannot argue with the general view that this naval vessel does not pass WP:GNG, but that only applies to stand-alone articles, not to inclusion in another article. Just turning this into a redirect effectively deletes the modest content altogether because the proposed target is just a straight index and has no provision for description. I don't think that this project should be telling the enquiring reader "Yes, there was a vessel Lillie B (SP-1502) that served in the US Navy. Period. There was some more detail but we've thrown it away." A suitable destination, whether a revamped List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy or a more appropriate spin-off, should be fixed first and then the merger can follow. Davidships (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've long suggested the treatment of the Lists of Empire ships be the model for all sorts of U.S.N. vessels of little importance other than a listing in DANFS. That is going to take a coordinated effort or a valiant single dedication to long term focus. Bluntly I doubt it will be done. I do not see keeping stand alone articles that are so thin as this until that "whenever" comes. What is here is a DANFS copy, as most are, so I think a note in the list with DANFS link is a good interim solution. Some of these SPs have interesting and notable yacht or other histories (one of my long term projects) but most were just mundane yachts and miscellaneous vessels. What is also lost is a reality that the whole SP thing was essentially a mechanism for a wealthy yacht owner to provide a base so he, relatives and friends could "play Navy" — unless the yacht got selected for distant service "over there" and the crews did not come back to the club after duty. That story is barely told here. Palmeira (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per Davidships. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge -- A hired patrol boat is inherently NN. Only if its civilian career was notable could we allow a stand alone article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy. Nothing notable is mentioned in the article and no one can locate other sources. // Timothy :: talk 07:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- There are other sources (which will be added when we have sorted out a revamp of the proposed destination so that it can me merged and then edited appropriately - I am working on the revamp at the moment Davidships (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Goa University. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Department of English, Goa University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a university program, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for university programs. English is one of the most generically common university programs on earth -- virtually every single university that operates in an English speaking country, and even many that operate in countries where English is a popular second language but not the dominant language of the locals, will have an English program. So they can't all be "inherently" notable enough for their own standalone articles as separate topics from the parent institution -- making a university program in any subject notable enough for its own article requires some pretty strong evidence that it should be seen as uniquely more notable than the norm, not just documenting its existence the exact same way you could document the existence of every other university program on the planet. And for sourcing, we've got its own self-published faculty directory, the raw results of a Google Scholar search for the work of one professor, and three glancing mentions of the university's existence in news articles that aren't about the university or its English department -- which means we've got exactly zero sources that are helping to get the department over WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Goa University as an ATD. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Goa University. Individual departments are rarely notable enough to justify seperate articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Goa University.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect per WP:SNOW and WP:MILL. I note that this is a very small department. In total, it has 30 graduates in its PhD program, perhaps one of which is notable. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Empire AS Talk! 18:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Dawid Mocke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not mentioned in sources 1 or 2, source 3 is a youtube video making this an unreliably sourced, promotional BLP of a non-notable person, also include in this discussion the unsourced Draft:Dawid Mocke which I moved from mainspace earlier during page triage JW 1961 Talk 20:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - this book contains plenty of coverage but the rest just seems to be dribs and drabs online. I found this and this on ProQuest. Aside from loads of promo and non-independent stuff, there is this. If there were another source of the same calibre as the book, then this could be kept. Spiderone 21:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep As a 4 time surf ski world champ he should be notable. The sources are there - you just have to look. Surfski.info calls him ISPA Surfski World Champ - https://www.surfski.info/latest-news/story/1218/sa-surfski-champs-dawid-mocke-wins.html - and winner of a National level Doubles Competition. Thats after 15min searching. Currently unreliably sourced but you just have to look per WP:BEFORE Gbawden (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: I find the additional references (after 5 January), the link above and the book extract to be sufficient for notability. Particularly the book, thanks, Spiderone. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - per source above and per the book I mentioned earlier Spiderone 11:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Anyone who feels the current name is inadequate can propose a move on the talk page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Chinese word for "crisis" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe the Chinese word is not notable because as a Chinese speaker, I've never heard anyone ever mention the alleged notability of the word, namely its composition from 危 and 机. So, no one in the Chinese-speaking community cares. Zh.wp does not have a separate article on the word, and the info is contained in the main article for "crisis". (zh:危机) 122.60.65.44 (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nomination copied from WT:ATD. – Joe (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Leaning keep, but perhaps retitle to indicate the status of the popular account as basically an urban legend. BD2412 T 21:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: This content is essentially a summary of a series of blog posts by Victor Mair and Ben Zimmer. (Although the article cites Pinyin Info, Mair and Zimmer also blog together at Language Log.) They are quite interesting blog posts, and the urban legend they relate to is a hardy perennial, but I'm not entirely sure they alone are sufficient to establish notability. If this stays, I would like to see some independent sourcing. I imagine, though, that such sourcing probably exists. Cnilep (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The sources listed in the article aren't overwhelming but enough to show notability – Language Log especially is a solid reliable self-published source. Since the article is about a business-speak trope based on English speakers' misunderstanding of the Chinese word, it's not surprising that it isn't noteworthy amongst fluent Chinese speakers (or zhwiki). – Joe (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason given for deletion. Refer WP:ATA. Opencooper (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. It's not important whether Chinese native speakers know this; as the article states it refers to its usage outside of China. It has been used as a phrase in Norway at least since 1968 as far as I can document. In a 1975 book Johan Galtung claimed this meaning and even rendered the Chinese letters. Geschichte (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: The nominator's argument is that this phrase is not relevant for Chinese speakers. The article is actually about how English speakers have turned a misunderstanding into a cliche. The sources are adequate here for notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This is a significant and popular WP page, with some 141,426 pageviews in 2020. None of the established English Wikipedia criteria for deleting an article include the idiolectal opinions of bilingual Sinophones. Keahapana (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as no valid reason for deletion is given. We have lots of articles in English Wikipedia that are not on their native language's Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Call signs in Canada. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- List of three-letter broadcast call signs in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of radio and television stations grouped on a criterion that represents trivia rather than a defining characteristic, and referenced entirely to directory lists rather than any substantive analysis of what might make this significant. This was clearly created to parallel List of three-letter broadcast call signs in the United States, which is also of questionable necessity but at least has a section (albeit unsourced) that provides some historical context for the grouping (as well as listing about four times as many stations) -- but the idea that any article that exists for the United States always has to be automatically paralleled by a matching article for Canada, regardless of any differences in cultural context or relevance or sourceability, has facilitated the creation of some awfully silly and pointless stuff in the past. The actual significance of this topic, in a Canadian context, could literally be dispatched with a couple of sentences in the existing Call signs in Canada, and there's no real reason why a standalone list of the three-letter outliers needs to exist as a separate page. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to the "Call signs in Canada" article Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete we do not group things based on a trait of their name, we groups things based on defining, unifying traits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: It's sourced, we have a category for this on US stations (probably a page too, don't quote me on that part), so why not. I'd like to see better sources...and that's possible with REC and the Canadian Communications Foundation historical database. So, sources are out there. It is also a rarity in Canadian radio and television, just like with American radio and television, so it is notable. I think it meets NMEDIA, as well as GNG. Just needs better sources. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:49 on January 5, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
- Merge: it should be kept by merging it into the list of Canadian call-signs, preferably as its own section. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 06:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per above. I would have voted delete as this is LISTCRUFTFORK, but the merge won't seriously hurt the target article even if its trivia. Support the same for the US List is mentinoed above if someone wants to be BOLD. // Timothy :: talk 15:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per NeutralHomer. Yoonadue (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge Agree with above, merge into Call signs in Canada - if the section ever got too big, it would warrant it's own page. But right now it would comfortable into the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I think a merge with List of three-letter broadcast call signs in the United States might actually make more sense. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Response: Bearcat and Mlaffs, I'm going to ask your opinions on this one. But I don't think this is a good idea. I think leaving the two articles seperate and linking the two together with a "See also" at the bottom would work just fine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:58 on January 12, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
- Well, that answers that. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:17 on January 13, 2021 (UTC)
- Keep or Move the contents somewhere else per reasons listed by others (User:Neutralhomer, etc.) above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to the "Call signs in Canada" article. Two thoughts on this. First, my knee jerk response is that I've never seen Bearcat steer me wrong when it comes to anything related to Canadian radio stations. Second, not only could the subject be covered in "Call signs in Canada", it already has been. As is currently noted in the article, "Three-letter call signs are only permitted to CBC Radio stations or to commercial stations which received their three-letter call sign before the current rules were adopted." That pretty much says it all. Mlaffs (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to the main article on call signs in Canada. Presumably, it's possible to make a table that sorts the call signs by number of letters in them, yes? This doesn't seem like a particularly notable distinction, and if it is, it's one that can be easily achieved without splitting the content out into its own article. jp×g 14:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Sandstein 16:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- 4Dwm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable product of minority interest that does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Article has had the "Unsourced" template present on it since 2012 - can potentially be merged into IRIX. Foonblace (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - A search for '4Dwm irix' on Google Books turns up many results. I imagine a Google Scholar query would turn up many more. I think it very unlikely this topic falls short of our notability threshold and it doesn't look like the nom has put any effort into finding alternative sources. If the nom doesn't rework the delete rationale, I am inclined to !vote for a speedy keep. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural speedy keep - Poorly constructed nom that did not do the bare minimum in terms of looking for coverage outside WP. Many ghits for 'irix 4dwm' on Google Books (see my comment, above) and Google Scholar [3]: it is the nom's job to look through these before putting together an AfD. AfD is too overloaded for us to waste our time with this. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep My google book search also returns several hits, nom failed to do a basic WP:BEFORE check. Jeepday (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose There appear to be multiple mentions of this peice of software in 1980-1990's textbooks and manuals relating to/dealing with UNIX systems. Sohom Datta (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural speedy keep as per above. Search is your friend. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Scott Gulbransen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is mainly a long advert, replete with inline external links. Many refs, most of them managing not to mention the subject.
There is possibly one ref showing a glimmer of notability, in adweek, but we cannot see the content. Is it advetorial? Who knows.
Of the rest, LA Raiders is a passing mention. Turbotax does not mention subject. Mediapost passing mention. Resteraunt news passing mention. PR news no mention. Forbes appears to be a blog; not WP:RS. Reuters events advetorial. NYT Who knows. Subscription only. BadleftHook no mention. Nevada press minor local award. google search wtf? SI.com passing mention. USA today passing mention. Reviewjournal.com no mention. This article is an advert for a PR person. Tagishsimon (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTRESUME and WP:TNT. This is plainly a resume, not an article, and needs more editing that normally processed. But even if it could be fixed, I don't see how the coverage is anywhere significant.Bearian (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Noms points appear valid, my search finds several passing mentions, nothing to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Agree with the assessment of the references above, a boring trawl; the only one with any real substance was one of the HR Block, if I recall aright. This is a bit of a resume, come to think of it. No real notability here. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oliver Quinlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cannot find reliable, independent coverage of this writer, researcher and educator. May be be WP:TOOSOON. Has been tagged for notability since 2017. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: A great person and very able as well. Skilled in various fields but unfortunately, he does not meet the requirement to be notable as per guidelines laid by Wikipedia. Neither WP:SIGCOV nor WP:GNG or any else. I can be wrong, especially if some sources are found but i don't think there are enough. And BLP articles that are poorly referenced are subject to great criticism. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 11:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I found what appears to be a reliably published review of one of his books in a language I don't read [4] but one review isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR, I didn't find more, and the sources we have also aren't enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MILL. Thousands of teachers are now Google certified. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Stephen Canning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Like the last two AFDs, he still fails WP:NPOL and the rest is just WP:BLP1E. There's no real in depth coverage and this is mostly just a giant puff piece leaning on a coatrack. (ie. While in office he proposed innovative right-wing policies, such as preventing tax rises by scrapping Essex County Council’s offices.
which is hardly innovative in Government much less from conservatives ;)) GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Löschenimpartial/could care less It took me about five minutes to write, I was drunk and high and I couldn't give atossmonkeys whether WP keeps it or not.Ebbing and flowey (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)- Kommentar I note GRINCHIDICAE🎄 has left the project. I will implement their feedback in accordance with their last wishes and remove
While in office he proposed innovative right-wing policies, such as preventing tax rises by scrapping Essex County Council’s offices.
.Ebbing and flowey (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Kommentar I note GRINCHIDICAE🎄 has left the project. I will implement their feedback in accordance with their last wishes and remove
- Weak Keep: It is perhaps borderline in terms of notability for a biographical article, but in my view there is possibly enough coverage in news sources and articles written by Canning to suggest he's had more general notability / news coverage than most other local councillors or former councillors in the UK. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Articles written by Canning don't help to make him notable. We require sources written about him, in the third person, by other people. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete notability comes from works created by other people, not from works created by the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Local government districts are not a level of political office that guarantees an article under WP:NPOL. Of the ten footnotes here, five are purely local coverage of the time that's simply expected to routinely exist for all local councillors whether they clear our notability standards or not, and thus are not GNG-bringers; two just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of not being about him, which does not help to make him notable; one is just a brief blurb verifying his initial election to council; and one is a piece written by him rather than about him. There's just one footnote here that's actually both substantively about him and from national media, and even that one is not about him doing anything significant enough to make him notable on those grounds per se. GNG, as always, is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number" — it tests the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, not just whether n>2 or not. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Too many articles are about local government; as per Bearcat, these don't give notability and are Run-of-the-Mill for local councillors. I don't anything particularly mature about this fellow in this media coverage. Not GNG, I do say. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- April 19 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This film fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.
The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
Then more specific:
- The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
- The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
- The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
- The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
- The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
Fails all of the above.
Now let's look at the references: Both references are the database entries.
Kolma8 (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- What about WP:BEFORE? and a link to the film guideline is sufficient, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources are quite disappointing, in both this version of the article and the foreign-language version; it doesn't make a real assertion of anything that passes NFILM either. jp×g 14:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Empire AS Talk! 18:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- John Poston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep MC and bar arguably is multiple award of second-highest honour. Position as Monty's aide has attracted references in books. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete arguable if two awards of the MC is "multiple times" for the purposes of #1 of WP:SOLDIER, but as that is just an Essay, he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. He didn't seem to do anything notable unlike Herbert Wohlfarth nominated for deletion above. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - a quick search turns up indications of sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Passes WP:SOLDIER #1 (which reminder "it's only an essay" is an Argument To Avoid). - The Bushranger One ping only 05:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- If there's SIGCOV add them in. WP:ONLYESSAY is perfectly valid because WP:SOLDIER is not a guideline, it is an Essay that lists categories presumed to have SIGCOV in multiple RS. If SIGCOV in multiple RS doesn't exist the person isn't notable even if they meet one of the categories. Mztourist (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Seems notable enough: I've added The Times obituary written by Montgomery himself Piecesofuk (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Meen (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.
The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
Then more specific:
- The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
- The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
- The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
- The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
- The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
Fails all of the above.
Now let's look at the references: All three references are the database entries.
Kolma8 (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- What about WP:BEFORE? and a link to the film guideline is sufficient, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I do not see " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," on either the English or foreign language page, My search did not find anything. Fails WP:NFILM Jeepday (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Karma (1995 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.
The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
Then more specific:
- The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
- The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
- The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
- The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
- The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
Fails all of the above.
Now let's look at the references: All three references are the database entries.
Kolma8 (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- What about WP:BEFORE? and a link to the film guideline is sufficient, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete , although I am willing to undelete on request if sources are found. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Vamsam (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This film fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.
The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
Then more specific:
- The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
- The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
- The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
- The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
- The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
Fails all of the above.
Now let's look at the references: Oops, an IMDB entry is the only source.
Kolma8 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- What about WP:BEFORE? and a link to the film guideline is sufficient, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - fails all criteria at WP:NFILM as far as I can see; probably uncontroversial enough for PROD Spiderone 21:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ranger (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
Then more specific:
- The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
- The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
- The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
- The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
- The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
Fails all of the above.
All three sources are links to the databases' entries, not articles or any other meaningful sources.
Kolma8 (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- What about WP:BEFORE? and a link to the film guideline is sufficient, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ithikkara Pakki (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.
The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
Then more specific:
- The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
- The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
- The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
- The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
- The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
Fails all of the above.
Now let's look at the references: All three references are the database entries.
Kolma8 (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- What about WP:BEFORE? and a link to the film guideline is sufficient, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thirupathi (2006 Kannada film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.
The general WP:NFILM notability guideline states:
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
Then more specific WP:NFILM:
- The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
- The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
- The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
- The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
- The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
Fails all of the above.
Now let's look at the references: #1 is dead; two other references are the database entries.
Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Comment You don't need to put the entire details of WP:NFILM in every deletion submission. To link to WP:NFILM is enough. Thanks. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom's excellent analysis. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 08:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Krátky proces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article seems to rely on a single book for sources, and there is nothing here to indicate that it passes GNG. They don't seem to have found any larger success and the only parts that are actually cited are about what the band members did once the band ended. ★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I looked at the article in 3 languages, non have claims or support that meet WP:NMUSIC, My search did not find anything additional that would meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: The get book coverage for racist extremism in Central and Eastern Europe. There are references to roots of white skinheads in Czechoslovakia, and, the role and importance of white power in the Czech republic. More on White power music is there. However, this is from a cultural / philosophical point of view and does not satisfy WP:NMUSIC. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Palo Alto Unified School District#Elementary schools. Consensus not to have an article and no opposition to redirecting as a alternative. Refining to section where mentioned. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Walter Hays School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable local elementary school; a WP:BEFORE search couldn't find anything beyond routine local coverage, and thus it doesn't seem to pass WP:NORG. Ovinus (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete We have agreed that in almost all cases elementary schools are not notable. There is nothing even remotely suggesting this school is an exception to this general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. RS coverage is routine in nature and lacking in depth. Fails WP:ORG and GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect - to Palo Alto Unified School District. Redirects are cheap and WP:ATD is policy. 174.254.192.246 (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete due to it lacking the multiple in-depth reliable sources it would need for either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Although, I'd be fine with a redirect to the Palo Alto Unified School District article also. Since redirects are cheap and there's zero reason not to redirect it. I'm just not voting that way because I'm not to sure it's a search term worth a redirect, but either option is fine with me. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect as suggested to Palo Alto Unified School District. It's an unusual name for a school, and a redirect is useful in such cases. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect - to Palo Alto Unified School District. // Timothy :: talk 20:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. However, blocking editors is not the purview of AfD. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Michael Sayman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article doesn't meet WP:BLP conditions for notability; fails WP:GNG.
Recommending WP:SALT. This page was nominated for deletion in October 2018, resulting in an overwhelming consensus of Delete; however, the page was re-created in its entirety merely 3 days after page deletion. Please find the original discussion and its verdict at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sayman. Radio Adept (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Regardless of whether this article is kept or deleted, salting seems extreme. The subject seems borderline for notability; if he isn't now, he certainly could be later, and I believe a reasonable argument could be made that he is. While an argument can be made that recreating a freshly deleted article is bad enough form to deserve no encouragement, the resulting article seems to be edited by a wide range of editors in a way that contraindicates serious issues like self-promotion, and implies a number of Wikipedians have independently decided this project is worthy of their time and attention. Salting would be a fairly radical reaction here. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not even close to noptable. Salting is justified considering the blatant and vlagrant defiance of the last consensus to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm against the proposal for creation protection for the reasons mentioned above, but I believe this article should be deleted per nom. FredModulars (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't see any specific notability cause for this young man right now. Yes, he has run the hard yards and saved his family from destitution, and yes, he is a wunderkind. None of this confers notability. This is not to say he won't get it, later on. Likely, he will take over from Zukerberg ten years from now, like this. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. With regard to the matter of recreation of the article three days after deletion discussion, my sense is WP:SALT is going too far. However, User Purplehippo458 should be blocked indefinitely. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fuzheado | Talk 03:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- List of prolific writers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A highly contentious article which doesn't conform WP:V. Wikipedia is not a repository or an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOTCATALOG. Surprisingly authors with 100+ publishing (possibly self-publishing too) made it to the "prolific writers" list. RationalPuff (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete there are no standard definitions of what makes one "prolific". We should not have a list that it can lead to a long debate as to what does and does not belong. Any actual cutoff with not overcome the problem of being entirely arbitary. Also, since this encompasses "writers" it is open to debate if we must limit this to published works as opposed to output. Beyond that, since it is writers, it means we include not just novels, but short stories, non-fiction works, articles, and anything else published if we do cover just published works. This leads to three questions - to be prolific do we mean total titles or total pages. If we mean the former, then the most prolific people will be those who focus on short stories and articles, if we use the latter than people who turn out 1000-plus page books will be considered most prolific.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Löschen This article looks to me like a good example of item #1 on WP:NOTCATALOG: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The "prolific" quality of the listed authors that binds them together on this list comes across to me as offering marginal Wikipedia:Notability. Add to that the problem of defining "prolific." The list currently limits itself to "authors with more than 100 books," but as John Pack Lambert points out, this is still very worthy of challenge given the variable length of books and the ability to publish prolifically without producing books. This list does have a lot of unreferenced content (WP:V), but I think that issue is not the one that supports deletion since it could be fixed. But then it would still be a repository of topics loosely associated around a hard-to-define theme that I think lacks notability. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Beryond that, where did people ever agree that 100 was the line of prolific. At least they assert it, but to categorize or build a list around something we need to do more than assert it, we need reliable sources to show that this cut-off exists as a standard measure, not just in the mind of a Wikipedia editor somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. This sounds like it would be extremely subjective, particularly since the term "writer" encompasses a wide variety of persons: poetry, song lyricists, novelists, short story writers, screenwriters, and so on. The line being drawn at 100 books is a bit of an eyebrow raiser since this eliminates many writers who are very commonly referred to as prolific, such as Stephen King, Laurell K Hamilton, and Charles Dickens, the latter of whom wrote 15 novels while also writing hundreds of shorter fiction and non-fiction works. This list also seems to focus on writers of fiction and doesn't seem to include prolific non-fiction writers like Sita Ram Goel or researchers who put out hundreds upon hundreds of journal articles.
- My point here is that this article as it stands is extremely subjective. I suppose that there could be some merit in having an article that does cover something like "fiction authors described as prolific" but the article would have to be very carefully written and would have to very clearly define what the article covers and why this is something worth covering on Wikipedia. I think that it's possible, but would take an extremely large amount of work and would effectively need to be written from scratch. Even then there would be some question as to its suitability even if it's limited to authors with articles, given that the term "prolific" can be applied fairly widely. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 04:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete POV concerns from a pair of AfD's I encountered (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prolific songwriters and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prolific singers) in early 2018 still apply here, except that there is less geobias. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- comment List of best-selling fiction authors workers better since the total sales of their books is far more important than the number of things they published. Dream Focus 21:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or Rename This just needs to go or be renamed something else. How is a prolific writer truly determined? It's way too subjective. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Agree with all arguments above. This is too subjective, and defining appropriate inclusion criteria would step beyond Wikipedia's reliance on outside reliable sources. -- 2pou (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete with no prejudice against recreation; there's too much conflation of novels, short-stories, pamphlets, and even letters to make the "published works" count meaningless. I think a list of authors with >100 novels would probably be fine, though for now Lists of books#Writer lists probably is good enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Carson Tueller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a social media influencer, not reliably sourced to sufficient coverage to get him over WP:GNG. Of the nine footnotes here, three are his own self-published content about himself on Instagram, LinkedIn and his own website, two are his "staff" profiles on the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, two are blogs and one is a podcast in which he's talking about himself in Q&A interview format -- which means that eight of the nine footnotes are not notability-supporting sources. The only source here that's actually useful is one article from a newspaper in a midsized media market -- but that's not enough coverage to make him encyclopedically notable all by itself if all of the other sources are junk. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just one piece of reliable source coverage about him in real media. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There is no evidence of any notability. When this first appeared I nominated it for speedy deletion which was overruled with the justification of "....he article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance". I wasn't prepared to argue the toss on a speedy deletion but it certainly gets nowhere close to notability on the sources quoted. At the time of the speedy nomination I also did extensive searches to see if any better refs were available. I could not find any. Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 18:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete rather thinly sourced. How does it not have categories? Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete this article does not even come close to meeting actual notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't meet notability standards. It isn't reliably sourced, and there aren't reliable sources out there because of the notability issue. Half of the sources are casual social media posts. AgentVibrantReality (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ramal, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created outside the run of geostub creation we've been dealing with, but the issues remain the same. Go back far enough and the topos show a rail junction here, but in no era is there any sign of a settlement. It's just a NN rail spot. Mangoe (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No post office. newspapers.com indicates that Ramal was a station: [5], [6], so WP:STATION applies. Newspapers.com did have a few articles of the form "so and so visited from Ramal": [7], [8]. There are some railfan articles about the Wingo/Ramal branch, but nothing that indicates that there was much of anything there. GBooks had hits concerning the railroad, Ramal road and the Ramal region, but nothing indicating that there was a notable settlement. As there is no legal recognition and there is no non-trivial coverage, #1 and #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met. Cxbrx (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete This article should have had WP:PROD applied, ""Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. It is an easier method of removing articles or files than the articles for deletion (AfD) or files for discussion (FfD) processes, and is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion. Jeepday (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gloria L. Main (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable retired professor. Source search turned up no coverage in independent sources. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Main authored 2 widely reviewed books; she meets WP:AUTHOR. I've added these reviews and added some context to the article. TJMSmith (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - TJM Smith has correctly noted that the subject qualifies WP:AUTHOR, i assure. But i don't know as to what extent will passing WPA help the article's case. On the other hand, she has not been covered significantly by sources and thus, fails WP:SIGCOV which is a problem. Her books are acclaimed and well-known. The fact that she has not received enough coverage is something to be blamed upon others. An author as good as her must be notable without any doubt. But as the things stand, i fear that she might not be accepted as notable by the majority that complies with notability guidelines. Flaws of such rigid regulations are exposed in cases like these. Everything seems to have come down to what is more important to pass - WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 15:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Much thanks to TJMSmith for their work. I agree with the above, I'd love to see some significant coverage in RS, but the article should probably stay. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR, and there appears to be enough biographical information available to write about her life and career. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY and WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR. Article does need more independent biographical references however. ExRat (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep WP:HEY. pburka (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Aside from the many book reviews, the subject's Google Scholar citations are healthy, with 98, 82, 74, 68, 58 citations for her top five works. I have added two papers to her selected works. The independent coverage does not need to be of the subject, just of her works, as provided here in bounteous amounts. Generally the faculty page will provide some reliable biographical information, though that might not work for someone long retired. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep -- Being given an emeritus/a title indicates that she was more than a mere lecturer. The books are published by major academic presses, which alos indicates notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Empire AS Talk! 18:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Pub Golf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently created to evade page creation protection after repeated deletion of Pub golf, which was deleted twice and has sysop-level creation protection. The other page was deleted as non-notable on 23 March 2007, then as blatant copyright infringement on 10 September 2008, and was protected from creation citing WP:NFT on 11 September 2008. Then the page with alternative capitalization was created on 30 November 2009. The editor that created the article never edited anything else, and stopped editing after less than a week (on 5 December 2009). On their user page, they self-identified as a student participating in Portland State University Project CS345 under the supervision of Lenshapir, who has not edited Wikipedia since 2 December 2009. Incidentally, if this is not deleted, it should be moved to Pub golf per MOS:GAMECAPS and recent RMs at Talk:Fuzzy duck and Talk:Snakes and ladders. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Previous deletions aside, and with no claims of copy vio for the current article. Seems to meet WP:GNG My google book search returns several hits that support the general claims of the article. Jeepday (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, somewhat surprisingly. The drinking game certainly exists, note [9] and [10]. There's a lot of information that shouldn't be in the article (some of which I will remove), and ideally List of drinking games would support a 1-paragraph description of the game and be a redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Fateh Singh Ahluwalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Some WP:ROUTINE WP:MILL coverage exists and mentions in other articles which fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. // Timothy :: talk 02:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom; no significant coverageSpiderone 14:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)- Keep passes WP:MILPERSON as a notable Military General of the Sikh army, King, Royalty of the Kapurthala kingdom. I had searched for "Fateh Singh Ahluwalia" 1758. see "History | Kapurthala Web Portal | India". Government of India., kapurthala history Walrus Ji (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Insufficient reliable sources to meet WP:N or even WP:V. The government website cited above mentions the person only in passing, and it is not clear how reliable it is. Sandstein 13:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting after a deleted close per request (with sources for consideration) as this was a close call and thus could be eligible for a third relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This King of an Indian state is also mentioned in the list of Rajas (kings) at Kapurthala_State#Rajas. Some more sources that cover some of his military campaigns are :[1][2] There are more sources on Google books for "Fateh+Singh+Ahluwalia"+1758 All of these discuss this military general and king. I have no idea why Sandstein thinks that Government of India website will falsify history about an important historical person in its summary history of the kingdom. It should also be noted that the region speaks Punjabi language. I have improved the article, added refs and the image. The article of this Indian King should now be kept. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ A history of the Sikhs, from the origin of the nation to the battles of the Sutlej. Cunningham, Joseph Davey, 1812-1851., Garrett, H. L. O. ed. (Herbert Leonard Offley), 1881-1941
- ^ Griffin, Lepel Henry. Ranjit Singh. Oxford : Clarendon press.
- Keep passes WP:GNG. Much can be found about him in secondary and tertiary sources.Serv181920 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Keep There is a lot of coverage him from non-primary sources. Also, he clearly passes WP:MILPERSON LeBron4 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - The sources, especially this, show that he was an important figure in Indian history and Sikhism in particular Spiderone 18:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - there is no shortage of acceptable sources for this clearly notable person. Ingratis (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. When I go to Google Books and search for the exact title, I see the sort of coverage that suggests to me that an article could be constructed. Per WP:BEFORE, I would say the nomination isn't well-founded. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wetherby bus station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG - only coverage is a mention in a disability discrimination case. SK2242 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete -has only 2 bays and 1 source.Caleb M1 (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:HOLE. Geschichte (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Empire AS Talk! 18:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Mohammed Abdurahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Other than the info box, the article contains a one-liner that tells users nothing about the person. Do note that the user who created the article as well as banned. Nigel757 (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nigel757 (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL significantly, according to the Soccerway link. Needs improving, not deleting. If this were a borderline pass, then deletion should be considered but with multiple appearances in a fully pro league (see WP:FPL), deletion isn't really an option Spiderone 15:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - meets NFOOTBALL, needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 17:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - He has played for the National team, check https://fbref.com/en/players/b58e18ff/nat_tm/Abdurahman-Mohammed-National-Team-Stats Serv181920 (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Are we sure that this is the same guy? He has a different DOB and plays in a different position? Also, slightly different name spelling. Spiderone 17:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I removed the unreliable league game stat. Soccerway only counts league games since 2011, whereas the infobox is supposed to render league games since 2004. Geschichte (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete one source is always a failure of GNG. This is not footballpedia, and we need to stop keeping articles that lack multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gabriele Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP without any actual references. Quite a lot of external links, some to his own publications and all in Italian. Is he notable? Rathfelder (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The subject has a number of press clippings on his website [11]. Some of the clippings are his own letters-to-the-editor however, and I'm struggling to find out where these clippings were published in order to turn them into proper citations. As far as I can tell, he operates out of his own shop/gallery and has not exhibited in any venues that we typically consider to contribute to notability for an artist; public galleries and museums. Vexations (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Vexations. The clipping are largely authored by Levy; those that are not are local coverage as far as I can tell. Possibly (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as the sources are not WP:SIRS. Theredproject (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the sources do not rise to the level of establishing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nima Bavardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Most of the article has been written based on a single source, I did check his work and media attention around his work, from what I see it should be speedy deleted but I think RFD might be better, the article doesn't pass GNG Mardetanha (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Just like Aidin Ardjomandi, I really do not know why his article was nominated for deletion. He is one of the few Iranian industrial designers who has won numerous international awards. His latest award, the best product of the European Product Design Competition in 2020, was reflected in various media such as Hamshahri Online, Tabnak, Tehran Times and Financial Tribune-. Like Aidin Ardjomandi, he is one of the few Iranians who is a member of the jury in various design competitions. I ask you and other editors to review this article again and consider the sources I mentioned. MrInfo2012 Talk 06:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)- Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 15:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, creator blocked as a confirmed spammer based on off-wiki evidence. MER-C 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete +Per Mardetanha 90 TV (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - pure spam Spiderone 21:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Samuel Irie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, in spite of what the article says, Kaduna United were not playing in the top tier of Nigeria. They were relegated in 2014 and haven't returned. See league history at WF. His other appearances have been in the semi-pro Kyrgyz league, Maldives 2nd tier, Thai 4th tier and he's just joined a Spanish 4th tier side. I could not find anything close to WP:GNG coverage either. Spiderone 13:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Randeep Grewal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article in the South China Morning Post is the only in-depth coverage I can find of the subject. I could be wrong, but I think this Randeep Grewal is a different person, and regardless, that is a niche source. WP:BIO does not seem to be met. I suggest a merge and redirect to Greka Energy. SmartSE (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the sourcing is nowhere near enough to establish Grewal as a notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not a notable businessman, fails GNG.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: sources all appear routine in nature, delete per nom. ~RAM (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Got7. Sandstein 20:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yugyeom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Opening discussion into whether this warrants an article or the redirect should be restored since an editor has repeatedly removed the redirect. To me it looks like failing both GNG and NMUSICIAN. Pahunkat (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect: redirect to Got7, fails WP:NMG. Abdotorg (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: no references. Potentially useful references at Jus2, a two-person group that includes Yugyeom. David notMD (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: References added by a new (Jan 4) User that are almost all from JYP Publishing, the company that employs Yugyeom, and hence not contributing to notability. David notMD (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect: still fails NMG. Alex (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect. Lacks independent reliable sources to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect: redirect to Got7. It can always be restored when he gets a solo hit record, very much like what happened with the Jungkook page in BTS. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Got7 - zero useful coverage; this is not a K-pop fan site and individuals need to meet the guidelines to have an article Spiderone 12:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Got7 – fails WP:NMG, as already noted at Draft:Yugyeom last July, and nothing has changed since then. --ChoHyeri (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Since the AfD was filed, eight (!!) new editors, accounts and IPs, have been editing only this article. Feels too blatant to be socking, more like fans of Yugyeom leaping into the fray. David notMD (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect most of the citations are from 2 sources and some from youtube. Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Yugyeom already has articles in 13 other language Wikipedias. Every other member of Got7 has an article. Their seven-year contracts are set to end within the week, and Yugyeom is expected to be leaving the group for a solo career. [12][13] A look through news articles mentioning Yugyeom suggests there probably is enough coverage to warrant an article, especially if one includes non-English sources. gobonobo + c 04:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Cosima Shaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible non notable actress. Almost no third party sources given or found. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete clearly not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted under multiple criterion, including A7, G5, G11. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmusique99. I have also salted the article and will be bagging and tagging others as I find them.. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- B Major (Music Producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've had enough of this, repeatedly recreated (sometimes under different names). Non-notable, fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN. Get this salted, along with the title variations. Pahunkat (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, WP:G5 (Bmusique99) and WP:A7 – Thjarkur (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: the article falls under several CSD criteria. The sourcse do nothing to support the subject's notability. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I should add that I also support salting given the creator's repeated and disruptive attempts to get their article to stick. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 12:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 12:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: How about salting, Þjarkur, Modussiccandi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahunkat (talk • contribs) 12:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Salting does little good with an editor who is happy to post the same article under a multiplicity of titles. Largoplazo (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and salt - pure spam - also think this is a WP:G3 hoax as none of the sources mention him Spiderone 12:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Spiderone: - I think they're just trying to create the illusion that he has received coverage, since his previous socks did try to create unsourced articles. Pahunkat (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- What's the point in trying to promote an artist who possibly doesn't even exist? It just sounds like a complete waste of time! Spiderone 12:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Meets WP:CSD A7 as an article indicating no significance. And sources I've found convey no notability for the subject. But since this has been going on disruptively for several weeks, with one account (or IP user) after another creating articles and drafts that get moved to article space, all with the same content, with a variety of disambiguations in their titles, and moving them from one title to another, let's get a solid DELETE determination here so we can salt all the variants used so far and G4 everything article about the subject under every title going forward. Largoplazo (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speed Delete, reluctantly, under A7, G5, G11, and possibly G3. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Redirection is optional. Sandstein 20:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Titania Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable hotel. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an annotated internet directory. We need to stop having articles sourced only to the subject's website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: It's a well-known hotel in downtown Athens. Besides that there is no in-depth coverage in the Greek media: mostly quasi promotional pieces, or articles focusing exclusively to the 2019 sale of Titania to the UK-based London & Regional Properties (so, perhaps a redirect to that article ?). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:MILL. There are thousands of 4-star hotels, but it's also a budget hotel. Almost all of the news stories about this hotel are in a local insider blog. There are zero articles about this hotel in any newspaper of record. There's a few mentions in travel books, but either literally a single line or at most a single paragraph. That fails far short of WP:SIGCOV. It also fails my standards for hotels: no "Paper of record ... articles," only a single review that I could find; nothing unusual or historic about it. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Kink (film). Sandstein 20:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Kink (documentary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Duplicate of article Kink (film), content should be merged and this should be redirected BOVINEBOY2008 10:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect as it is a duplicate topic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sheraz Khalid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and the new WP:NCRIC guidelines. HawkAussie (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete it is high time we actually started removing signifcants numbers of the articles that do not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Trivial and routine coverage only; fails GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Abdul Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and the new WP:NCRIC.
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason.:
- Mosa Gaolekwe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tshepo Mhozya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) HawkAussie (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NCRIC. No evidence that the subject played above Division 2 World Cricket League. RationalPuff (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete none of these are even remotely close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete all - none of them meet cricketer criteria nor general biographical notability criteria Spiderone 21:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ~ mazca talk 12:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Samson Awiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails the new WP:CRIC and also WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep meet WP:NCRIC and trying to pre-empt a proposal that hasn't happened yet seems a bit disruptive. At worst redirect to the team article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete the standard article must all meet is GNG. Any article that does not meet GNG should be deleted. It is time to stop Wikipedia being Cricketpedia and to remove the cricketcruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Ghana Twenty20 International cricketers. Consensus is that the subject does not merit a standalone article, redirecting per ATD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Julius Mensah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite formally passing WP:NCRIC. The player fails WP:GNG and the new WP:NCRIC with the regional finals being removed from the list. HawkAussie (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep meet WP:NCRIC and trying to pre-empt a proposal that hasn't happened yet seems a bit disruptive. At worst either redirect to the team article or the List of Ghana Twenty20 International cricketers page. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet GNG. GNG is the standard for all articles. If GNG is not met we delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails all meaningful notability criteria including GNG & SPORTCRIT. Nominally passes NCRIC, but by consensus that guideline is a too inclusive and only offers an extremely weak presumption of notability. No sources beyond wide ranging databases, routine coverage (squad announcements, match reports, scorecards) and passing mentions. The same seems to apply to all the other players in List of Ghana Twenty20 International cricketers. Weak option to redirect to this list, but I'm not convinced redirects for such obscure cricketers have any value. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Ghana Twenty20 International cricketers where he is mentioned Spiderone 23:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of stock exchanges. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- List of stock exchange trading hours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All information is on List of stock exchanges already, no need for duplicate information. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 04:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 04:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Trivial listcruft. Shankargb (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep This content was explicitly merged following discussion here and here. Per WP:MAD, our standard policy is that "The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists." This nomination is a drive-by which has failed to do due-diligence per WP:BEFORE and so should be speedily dismissed. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, So then, why can't it be redirect? Having the same content twice is just stupid. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 17:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, Additionally, at no point in WP:MAD do I see "The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists." Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 18:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- That text comes from the talk page where another similar merge is documented. WP:MAD provides a detailed explanation of the policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, "So then, why can't it be redirect? Having the same content twice is just stupid." Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 21:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- There have been numerous page titles, merges and discussions for our coverage of stock exchanges. What we don't need is yet another page to discuss the matter. It's this page here which is redundant. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, "So then, why can't it be redirect? Having the same content twice is just stupid." Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 21:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- That text comes from the talk page where another similar merge is documented. WP:MAD provides a detailed explanation of the policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy redirect A merge has already been supported and carried out; any additional information should be merged though I don't see why this needs to be compiled anyway. Speedy keep is wholly inappropriate because the content is a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE and it already been determined that this should not be kept as a separate page. Reywas92Talk 00:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect As I am the nominator, I would like to agree with Reywas92 above, this is a unnecessary duplicate. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 00:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom and Reywas92. // Timothy :: talk 14:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Cooperative Research Centre. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Bushfire CRC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion of defunct non-notable organization; at minimum, upmerge with Cooperative Research Centre. fgnievinski (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect to Cooperative Research Centre. This is an obvious alternative to deletion, I'm not sure why this had to come to AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per Deus et lex. Mccapra (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Per the others, a Merge seems like the best idea. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Cooperative Research Centre per Deus et lex. // Timothy :: talk 07:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Cooperative Research Centre. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- CSSIP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion of defunct non-notable organization; at minimum, upmerge with Cooperative Research Centre. fgnievinski (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect to Cooperative Research Centre. This is an obvious alternative to deletion, I'm not sure why this had to come to AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per Deus et lex. Mccapra (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Inline with the other similar page, Merge. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Cooperative Research Centre per Deus et lex.
- 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 20:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Jasmine Commerce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"Commerce" indeed. Sources in this article do not add up to encyclopedic notability. They are either too local, or clearly not independent (with a few dead links to round out the collection. I am not seeing WP:GNG met here. BD2412 T 04:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete nothing comes close to indicating this person is a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sandstein 20:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds Fake But Okay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:Notability due to lack of reliable secondary sources. The subject of the article recruited agents on Twitter to manipulate this article, violating WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEAT.Waqob (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 06:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 06:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep: We've been here before. There are no "recruited agents" on Twitter "manipulat[ing]" the article (wow, that sounds like a Trump conspiracy theory...yes, I went there!) 20 references, I think that's notable enough. One of those was for "Best LGBTQ+ Culture Podcast" for 2020. Highly notable. Absolutely zero COI and NPOV. I do believe we already established the "meatpuppet" issue...unless we are talking about a new Lady Gaga meat dress.
- In case you are wondering, no, I am not taking this AfD seriously because this is stupid. As are a number of Waqob's edits like this and this and this and this and this, not to mention the unilateral move of this page without discussion. Not to mention the user's all-of-a-sudden appearance and editing spree after a very gnome-ish year-to-year pattern of editing.
- My point is, this entire AfD is to make a POINT (the user's current style of editing is as well, to be quite honest). It's against the rules and there is no POINT to it. The user is clearly editing in a unconstructive manner and is not here to edit constructively within the rules of the community. I move that this AfD be Speedy Kept and Closed immediately, with disciplinary action at least considered forthwith. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:23 on January 4, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
- What point could I possibly be trying to make? You seem unusually defensive of both this article and the creator Beepbopwhy. Other editors found evidence of Beepbopwhy of being a paid actor with a conflict of interest and you seem unusually quick to jump to the passionate defense of Beepbopwhy, and you also seem to know personal details about the editor, which is suspicious. The quantity of the sources is irrelevant, what matters is the quality. All of this article's sources are either directly affiliated with the podcast or they are unverified human-interest stories intended to embellish the podcast. The Best LGBTQ+ Culture Podcast award is presented by a website called Discover Pods which doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article, and most of the other podcasts awarded by the website don't have Wikipedia articles either - so it is unknown what makes this podcast notable enough for a Wikipedia article. When editors include tags in this article that point out this problem, you remove them. This is suspicious behavior that reveals a potential conflict of interest, especially since the podcast is known to publicly call for an army to engage in editing manipulation on its behalf. Waqob (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, what is "suspicious" is you ask for improvement and then immediately nom it for deletion. So, do you want improvement or deletion? Which is it? Also, just because something else doesn't have a Wikipedia article doesn't make this non-notable. Be BOLD, create it! I believe you need to explore the rules of Wikipedia before you start nominating things for deletion.
- Also, there is a community online the Asexuality Community, which is part of the much larger LGBTQIA+ community. It's not an "army" that one can "publically call" to "engage in editing manipulation" on anyone's "behalf" and no one has. You are misleading everyone, including yourself, if you believe that's what is taking place.
- Since you are clearly unaware of the chain of events and how things transpired, let me bring you up to speed.
- Several months back, Actress Pauley Perrette (best known for her role on NCIS) apparently came out as asexual via her Twitter account. Now, whether that is true or not, we will never know. Why? Because people began messaging her en masse and basically within hours, she removed any mention of it from her Twitter account. There was a MAJOR and VERY heated edit war on her Wikipedia page and across other Wikipedia pages. I followed her Wikipedia page, so I naturally got involved. While trying to find any kind of reference (ie: via Google searches), I realized that a community was very much up in arms on Twitter about the page. They didn't understand why what was going on, why things were being erased from Wikipedia.
- Knowing I could help, even if that meant I had to out myself publicly, I was OK with it. So I did. Connecting my real world name with my Wikipedia account. I began communicating with the Asexual Visibility and Education Network via their Twitter account. Explaining the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia and what everything meant as it was happening in real time. Yes, the proverbial shit did hit the fan. But not because I was communicating to the Asexuality Community via Twitter. Because they, themselves got involved and advocated for themselves and basically shut down the hate that was going around. Things, though, did work out and conversations were had.
- The young woman who originally created the Sounds Fake But Okay article (ie: Beepbopwhy, formerly Kayla kas) disconnected herself from the article and I took it over. I asked it be deleted and I recreated it (with admin approval) as it was with some major revisions and then, added a ton of references. Now 20 of them reside on the page, soon 21.
- My point TL;DR point is you didn't have the entire story and you made a mountain out of a molehill.
- There is no conspiracy, there is no "army", there is no "editing manipulation", and yes, I vehemently defend those who can't defend themselves....with. a. passion. Oh and the "editors [who] include tags in this article that point out [a] problem"...there were two! One had a long history of not being agreeable, so it was pointless to try. The other, we discussed it and moved on. Your points are without merit. A community discussion with the Asexuality community included has already taken place, a conversation was had, nerves were soothed, people have moved on. YOU are late to the party, dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:27 on January 5, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
- My concern isn't with Pauley Perrette, it's with Sounds Fake But Okay. In ordinary circumstances, Sounds Fake But Okay would have been deleted due to spam and a lack of reliable secondary sources. The podcast posted this tweet on May 19th 2020, the day the article was approved. And someone posted this response a day later, claiming to have approved the article. Editors noticed various problems with both the new article and its creator, who were subsequently silenced by you. This indicates that this article was approved in a biased non-neutral manner and the creator of the podcast hired people to prevent it from being deleted. Waqob (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Waqob: Apparently you are having a hard time reading. The Pauley Perrette article and the hooplah is tied to this one. Just with about 5 months between them. Now, the user you keep quoting....is me] for the 4th time! It isn't "someone", it isn't "biased", and it isn't "non-neutral" and I wasn't "hired". Would I like to get paid after nearly 15 years. You bet your ass I would. Having to deal with this shit all day. Hell yeah, gimme a pile of dough!
- There is no conspiracy, there is no "army", there is no "editing manipulation", and yes, I vehemently defend those who can't defend themselves....with. a. passion. Oh and the "editors [who] include tags in this article that point out [a] problem"...there were two! One had a long history of not being agreeable, so it was pointless to try. The other, we discussed it and moved on. Your points are without merit. A community discussion with the Asexuality community included has already taken place, a conversation was had, nerves were soothed, people have moved on. YOU are late to the party, dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:27 on January 5, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
- But no, as I said above, I took it upon myself to after Kayla (aka: Beepbopwhy)) disconnected herself from this article, and I brought it back to a revised standard. Yeah, it was as she wrote it, but I added improvements. But, credit was give were credit was due. She created this originally, not I. All I did was add sources, categories, and now I watch over the page. That's all I do. I don't get paid a cent and I was never asked. It is YOUR burden to prove that I am being paid (ie: hired) to make the edits I have made, just like you have to prove the conflict of interest. So far, you have done none of that. It's more of a flailing-at-the-wind-kinda-interpretative-dance-and-yelling-really-loud-at-anyone-talking thing. It ain't workin'.
- So, TL;DR: Once again, this Twitter account is mine. I am not being paid. Read the chain of events, stop grasping as straws...and maybe turn off OAN or Fox News. Yeah, I went there...again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:29 on January 5, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
- Keep. I have never heard of this podcast before I ran across this nomination. I agree that the article has a notability issue. What's ridiculous is that the editor seems to have nominated it for deletion solely because the podcast mentioned on Twitter that a notability tag had been placed on the article. The nomination went up right after the notability tag was added. Asking people to help improve the article doesn't violate WP:COI, WP:NPOV, or WP:MEAT. Lagringa (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- The notability tag was added previous times in the past and the tweet was a reference to the one that was added on June 19th (and the tag was removed a moments after the tweet)Waqob (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I was actually incorrect earlier when I said Justnumbersandletters was "One had a long history of not being agreeable, so it was pointless to try", that was a goof on my part. That was in June and it's been a VERY tough year, plus I was just getting over COVID (so you'll have to forgive me, memory is a little foggy there). He actually had just declined Beepbopwhy's article for creation and in his very next edit, put those templates up. I thought it was a little vindictive, but that's why I did respond the way I did. I did work with the other editor though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:44 on January 5, 2021 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
- The notability tag was added previous times in the past and the tweet was a reference to the one that was added on June 19th (and the tag was removed a moments after the tweet)Waqob (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Article needs a little clean-up. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG with the sources indicated by Neutralhomer. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Fábio Scalon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another attempt of using the Wikipedia as a means of promotion by RafaelWalik (talk · contribs · email) and their sock farm. This is a long-term globally locked abuser who have been trying to use several WPs (incluing pt.WP and en.WP) as a plataform to promote their clients. Their strategy here is the same as in other articles they created (see Nah Cardoso and Leo Picon), the use of paid/unreliable/non-independent sources to give the article the appearance of notability. Note that at the pt.WP the article was promptly speedy deleted. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 06:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 06:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 06:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete not even close to being a notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Maristino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doubtful if this exists: the name is not a plausible romanisation of a Japanese name, so it is not possible to search for in Japanese. Reference seems extremely dubious. Article was created by the very first edit of an editor (now gone) who otherwise mostly added links to WP:es Imaginatorium (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - potential hoax? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I tried looking up sources for this and aren’t any so it is possible that is fake.CycoMa (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete likely hoax and lacking proper sourcing if not. Mccapra (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and add to the list of long-lasting Wikipedia hoaxes Spiderone 10:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Can't find a single thing about it online, almost certainly a hoax. Pladica (talk) 9:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Madeline Duggan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable actress - I've added sources to the article however the majority are all credits, Only best sources I've found are this, this and this,
Other than EastEnders she's only played one-bit roles. No objections to redirecting to EastEnders if desired, Potentially meets NACTOR however certainly fails GNG. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep One search on Google is showing me multiple sources about Duggan and her career, such as this, this, this, this, this and this, to name a few, which in itself meets GNG. Her amount of roles also satisfy NACTOR. – DarkGlow (✉) 18:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Except all of those sources you provided have all taken content from this very article which is why I've not included those .... I certainly don't agree with filing up the article with "What happened to x" and X is all grown up now". I still don't believe there's any notability here beyond EastEnders and even then there's not much if any. IMHO bar EE she's not significant roles either - most if not all have been one bit roles. Still fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 18:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Played a major role in one of Britain's biggest series for four years. That equates to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep To the nominators point, the actress has only played two main and large enough roles to have a Wikipedia page, but one of those productions is extremely famous and she plays a very important role in it. It would almost be bizarre if the entire C-class rated article about her character didn't link an actress' Wikipedia page. Speaking more factually, she definitely does pass WP:GNG as mentioned above and in the article, and passes all the points in WP:NACTOR, especially because of her unique and innovative contributions to her field of entertainment. Coreykai (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - satisfies NACTOR and the sources available are just about enough for GNG, in my view, she was on the largest UK soap for several years and was a main character during that time so should be kept on that basis alone Spiderone 15:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- California Farm Water Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no indication that this organization has notability. This article has been unsourced for over 10 years and despite the first AfD being closed as "keep" no sources were ever added. The last AfD had no participation so I'm hoping we can come to a consensus this time.
Any sources that I can find are usually about it's executive director and/or trivial thus not meeting WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:ORG. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete we need to stop just acting as a lightly annotated guide to websites, which is what we are when articles are only sourced to organization websites. Despite the claims this is a "major player in politics" in the Afd discussion 8 years ago, the article lacks any sources that demonstrate this claim. 8 years is more than long enough to add such sourcing if it in fact existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 21:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Doughlings: Arcade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable. WP:VG/SE shows zero authored sources. All sources currently used are unreliable. LordZangar and McRunninFly appear to be COI editors. IceWelder [✉] 17:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 17:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete A lot of mentions in unreliable sources but little in the normal gaming press. The Metacritic page seems review bombed as well, making this even more dubious. WP:NOTADVERTISING.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 20:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Le Panini [🥪] 23:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Shahzad Sarwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not SIGCOV for WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:IS WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Some routine mill coverage exists and mentions in other articles that fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements. // Timothy :: talk 01:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Not checked in detail but the principal of Punjab University College of Information Technology could be considered to fulfill WP:NACADEMIC #6. If that were agreed, and properly sourced, then additional compliance with the general notability guideline would not be needed, as the two are alternatives (my reading is that although obviously all BLPs need reliable sources for their material, sources independent of the subject are not required). If that position were not held to fulfill WP:NACADEMIC #6, then I don't think the subject would otherwise qualify at this time per the citation record in Google Scholar [14]; there's only one or two moderately cited articles in what looks like a fairly citation-heavy field. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment on NACADEMIC 6: I agree with Espresso Addict this hinges on whether the section of the university they are Dean of is considered a "major academic institution". I don't believe so based on there only being 25 PhD faculty members and less than 100 permanant teaching members (info from the WP article), but if there is evidence from IS RS sources that this is recognized as a major institution separate from the University it is a part of, then the subject passes NACADEMIC. There is no dobut it is a quality program, but a "major" academic institution with only 25 PhDs? in a country well known for technology education. // Timothy :: talk 04:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Major" isn't well defined, unfortunately. Also needs sourcing -- it's not in the given Ref 4 as far as I could see, and on a very quick look, I couldn't find the appointment on the college website. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Espresso Addict, He's definitely more notable than more of the football players who have articles... // Timothy :: talk 01:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed! I do think one of the general problems is that the threshold for academics is actually pretty high compared with that for, say, sportspeople, actors and authors. The fact that passing WP:PROF gives a free pass for GNG obscures the fact that passing PROF is really difficult. In fact it's often much easier to prove notability for an academic as a writer by reviews, than to actually pass PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Major" isn't well defined, unfortunately. Also needs sourcing -- it's not in the given Ref 4 as far as I could see, and on a very quick look, I couldn't find the appointment on the college website. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete deans are not default notable, this only applies to the actual academic head of a whole institution, not heads of constituent parts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the above sentiment that his administrative position appears to be dean-level rather than head of whole university (albeit at a major university), too low for notability through WP:PROF#C6. His citation record, while not bad, isn't strong enough to make a case for #C1, and I don't see anything else that comes close. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Near-unanimous consensus for WP:HEY work. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Megan Smolenyak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be written by user with same name as subject's public relation's manager with significant COI, multiple prior concerns over a year ago suggesting resume-like, fails WP:PROMOTION, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:ANYBIO. Article is poorly cited with claims of awards from unremarkable sources with questionable passing of GNG. --Monteboat (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep
Deleteper WP:HEY due to Pesticide1110's good work improving the article.- promotion-only advertorial article WP:PROMO.The article creator was first warned about COI in 2010, and never responded. I've warned them again today, let's see if they answer.Also does not appear to pass WP:NAUTHOR.Netherzone (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Kommentar - If there is any doubt as to the promotional nature of this article there are now six links to book sales websites. Netherzone (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Netherzone: The six links to the book sales websites has not been added by the article's author who is accused of having COI. Many of them were added by me and that was only to cite the book and prove that she is the author of those books. P.S. I cited Penguin random house and Amazon because the description they have put on the sales page has some useful information about her. If other editors think that those citations make the article promotional, then please tell me. I'll try to replace them. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pesticide1110: hello, yes they seemed promotional. Not the sort of sources encouraged on WP. best to remove them for article credibility. Netherzone (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Netherzone: Don't worry, this issue won't last long. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 05:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pesticide1110: hello, yes they seemed promotional. Not the sort of sources encouraged on WP. best to remove them for article credibility. Netherzone (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Netherzone: The six links to the book sales websites has not been added by the article's author who is accused of having COI. Many of them were added by me and that was only to cite the book and prove that she is the author of those books. P.S. I cited Penguin random house and Amazon because the description they have put on the sales page has some useful information about her. If other editors think that those citations make the article promotional, then please tell me. I'll try to replace them. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Kommentar - If there is any doubt as to the promotional nature of this article there are now six links to book sales websites. Netherzone (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Netherzone: Have a look. I've only let Penguin random house and Barnes and Nobles remain there because they cite a piece of information which, if these sources are removed, will be unreferenced. P.S. They are reliable. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 07:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: Just going through the 11 citations given in the article, i can say without any hesitation that the subject is notable. No research is needed. She is one of the center of attention of all the articles cited from various sources like NY Times and Huff Post which rarely covers personalities who are not notable. Other than that she has accomplished a lot as suggested by the "Awards" section which i'll certainly cite within a week. Even if she does not pass WP:NAUTHOR (although she does, see her books mentioned in the article), she does pass WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. And that's enough considering that her best known work lies in her research of Genealogy which is "highly respected by peers". She is being described as the leading genealogist of the country and even the world by some (see the citations in the article i just added). Thus she passes WP:NACADEMICS as well. This is the strongest keep i can ever vote. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 17:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per Pesticide1110's comments 9H48F (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete This is overly promotional rubbish. Also, the indications this was created by the individuals PR manager is in and of itself enough to delete the article. People should not be allowed to buy their way into inclusion in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Whether this article was written by a paid contributor or not should be of no consequence to whether the subject is notable and passes inclusion criteria. While paid contributor created articles are not necessarily encouraged they are also not expressly forbidden. I get that some editors here are adamantly and staunchly against paid contributions. I actually believe some are just anti-everything they don't care about but that's another topic in and of itself. If that's the case then get the policy changed. The article is adequately cited by reliable sources and Megan is discussed significantly as the primary subject of these independent pieces. She passes WP:GNG. Nothing says a subject must pass a specific SNG to be included. Only GNG is needed to establish notability. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Tsistunagiska Exactly. This was the point i was looking for someone to put. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 01:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Being new here, I have found this exercise to be instructive and have tremendous respect for all editors given the time this took to figure out. In any case, I think my views are clear so this will simply be a comment. I agree with the earlier commenter that a paid author is discouraged but not forbidden nor takes away from potential notability. But I also sympathize with the other commenter about the promotional aspect. But still ask yourself, would this article have ever been written if her likely PR manager had not started it? This is not a content issue or attempt to clean up the article more appropriate for Talk. We now know the awards section and claims of finding “thousands” of soldiers by the original author was inflated. The issue here is about what we, as a community, define as notable or encyclopedic. This subject has done some good work with the family trees of a limited number of famous people and it should be noted that credit was given to her in those respective biographies through citations including Obama and his wife. But is she, herself, really notable and deserving of her own article by WP:BASIC, WP:ANYNBIO or WP:AUTHOR standards? There are only a small handful of articles that covered her work. Is that significant coverage? Her own articles in Huffington cannot be considered coverage of her. Her books were never widely reviewed (or reviewed at all) save for a mention here and there, the groups/websites she founded have been dormant for years and were never really significant when active and she has no major awards to speak of other than a single meritorious mention (even the “Bo Peep” award is from an old fringe Listserve group reborn on Facebook). Furthermore, the number of citations does not establish notability. None of this is to say that she has not contributed to the betterment of society because she has or takes away from her accomplishments. There are clearly “notable” genealogists including an entire National Genealogy Hall of Fame of which few members have WP articles (I’d actually work on those if I had time to continue learning how to edit) but I understand not everyone can be on that list. Of course, not everyone should be on WP, either. In the end, this article just looks like a fancy resume exploiting the WP platform.--Monteboat (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Monteboat: agreed that COI/UPE is problematic to NPOV, contributes to wikispam and misuses the encyclopedia as an advertizing platform. I must admit, tho, what puts a bit of doubt in my mind is the nomination itself, and please don't take this the wrong way, but as a new editor, how did you learn so many WP-specific acronyms, embedded external URLs, and links to policy in your very first edit on the article Talk, and then figure out how to create a perfectly formed AfD on your sixth edit ever? Maybe I'm just slow but it took me many months to figure out this stuff. Netherzone (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Netherzone: The question i wanted to ask but did not ask. I was okay with him being precocious but just wanted to know what led him to start his editing with AFD nomination of this article. @Monteboat: She is superior to every single genealogists in the aforementioned hall of fame. NYT best selling author described him as the greatest american genealogist. I didn't get why you said that her coverage is not sufficient. She is the subject of 2 NYT, Washington Post etc. articles. Her coverage exceeds expectation to be honest. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 05:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Netherzone: You should feel comfortable asking any question to others, but please keep that in the user’s Talk page. For the record, WP is pretty self-explanatory and provides excellent step-by-step instructions on how to nominate a single page WP:AFDHOWTO if you just follow the instructions and copy and paste, took me a few hours to learn. I invested that time because I felt strongly enough that this page does not meet the standards of notability, at least not yet. But please be realistic. She is obviously not superior to the greatest genealogists as voted by her own society. Two NYT articles and 6 books ranked in the 100s to 1000s in their respective field (at least by Amazon.com standards) does not elevate one above genealogists who have made major contributions such as the pedigree chart, written hundreds of scholarly articles or have their work archived by research institutions. Her own peers have not recognized her as the greatest and such comments by others are obviously hyperbole for marketing purposes. But then again, I don’t think that’s the standard we need to meet. The only question for the community is if she is notable for this encyclopedia and that was the intent of this nomination.--Monteboat (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Monteboat, the subject of the article now meets WP:GNG by way of verifiable significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, over a period of time (not just notable for one event). The article was lacking before but has been improved per WP:HEY and should be retained as constructive contribution to the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Netherzone The “significant coverage” of two NYT articles was there at the beginning and there have been no notable content additions except citations. In fact, what has changed is the content removal of the previously misleading awards and removal of the inflated achievements that were used to support earlier Keep comments. I’m not sure how showing fewer accomplishments and removing misleading content by the alleged PR manager is now a stronger argument to Keep. If two NYT articles buys you a spot in WP, we set a low bar for inclusion here. At the end of the day, I guess we just disagree on the definition of “notability” and “significant coverage” a grey zone to be sure, and that’s really what this AfD is about, much like many others.--Monteboat (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Monteboat, I stand by my !vote to retain the article. Netherzone (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Netherzone The “significant coverage” of two NYT articles was there at the beginning and there have been no notable content additions except citations. In fact, what has changed is the content removal of the previously misleading awards and removal of the inflated achievements that were used to support earlier Keep comments. I’m not sure how showing fewer accomplishments and removing misleading content by the alleged PR manager is now a stronger argument to Keep. If two NYT articles buys you a spot in WP, we set a low bar for inclusion here. At the end of the day, I guess we just disagree on the definition of “notability” and “significant coverage” a grey zone to be sure, and that’s really what this AfD is about, much like many others.--Monteboat (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sharon L. Contreras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating on behalf of an IP editor who has requested a deletion debate on my talk page. (I am neutral with regards to deletion at present, and have not investigated beyond the article not being suitable for G11 and the subject satisfying the general notability guideline.) The rationale given by the IP is: "1. Article has a 5 year old unresolved NPOV dispute.
2. Article was written by one user in March 2015 by Snowydayny. Only contributions are for this page.
3. Claims made by article lack evidence.
4. Article is an Orphan
5. Article has not been updated since 2017.
6. Article claims to be part of Wikiproject New York/ Syracuse yet person does not reside in nor work in Syracuse, New York. Nor any other part of New York.
7. Article is a conflict of interest since the most likely person to be Snowdayny is Sharon Contreras or a PR firm hired by her to get the Guilford County Schools job.
8. Dubious claims about discipline in the schools"
For clarity, the creator of the article was DASonnenfeld on 20 August 2013 but the article was heavily edited by Snowydaynys in March 2015, including substantial addition of content; Snowydaynys has no contributions outside this article. Further discussion on my user talk (Sharon Contreras Speedy Deletion) and on the article's talk page, and also see the edit history with repeated declined G11 speedy deletion requests. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete superintedants of local school districts are virtually never notable, nothing suggests that Contreras is one of the super super very extreme exceptions to this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Battle of M2-XFE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Criterion 4 in WP:EVENTCRIT indicates clearly this is not a notable event; this point makes clear that even serious real life events (such as most crimes) are not notable unless they have WP:LASTING WP:SIGCOV, virtual events should be held to at least this standard. Eve is a great long-running MMO and this was by all accounts a fun event, but WP is not a collection of all information about everything, just because something happened and someone wrote about it does not make it notable. The article is mainly unsourced WP:OR WP:SYNTH and fails WP:GNG and EVENTCRIT / LASTING. WP:BEFORE showed no SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS for a stand alone article; sources in the article do not have SIGCOV.
I am also nominating the following related pages:
// Timothy :: talk 01:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. An event like this should preferably have ongoing notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't seem to be notable enough. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete (or merge to Eve Online#Players and communities) per nom. IceWelder [✉] 08:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and merge with Second Battle of M2-XFE. We have an articles on the Battle of Asakai and Bloodbath of B-R5RB, prior EVE battles notable as the largest video game battles in history at those times. If both of those battles were deemed notable per WP:EVENTCRIT it seems that this battle (which certainly had more in-game value destroyed; depending on exchange rates it may have had more real-money value destroyed) is also notable. Iwilsonp (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Reply Battle of Asakai and Bloodbath of B-R5RB do not meet EVENTCRIT, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. // Timothy :: talk 23:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Reply While that is normally the case, the Bloodbath of B-R5RB is a Good article and WP:OTHERSTUFF says "While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, make a much more credible case." Iwilsonp (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The article on the previous EVE battle the Bloodbath of B-R5RB was nominated for deletion on similar grounds and the community consensus was to keep it. Iwilsonp (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Declaring possible COI: In the interests of full transparency, I participated in the Battle of M2-XFE. Iwilsonp (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ontario Party of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No demonstrated notability. The party lasted for less than a year, during which it never stood any candidates or even received formal recognition. While the party did receive some coverage in the mainstream news (the National Post), there is no lasting coverage to speak of and it cannot be said to have had any sort of impact. — Kawnhr (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, I'd support redirection to a list instead if the party was still active. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment If someone can find sources for the article's contents, this should stay. If not, the page should be deleted. LeBron4 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I could not find any news on this in Google news. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nah Cardoso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is a clear attempt to use Wikipedia as a means of promotion. The article is filled with several paid/unreliable/non-independent references. It was created by a blocked/sock account and maintained by several other sock accounts. Plus, when it was created on Oct. 1, 2016 it was nominated for speedy deletion, but the nomination was contested by one of the creator's sock accounts. In the PT.WP (where people can read Portuguese) the article was deleted 9 times (including once via a AfD). Also there, on Pt.WP, the article was created and maintained by several sock accounts linked to user RafaelWalik, a globally locked and long-time abuser, who also created the article Leo Picon (which I also nominated for AfD). It looks like they are using WP as a soapbox. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 02:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Delete and create protect as this is clearly promotional. Having 6m+ followers does not automatically make you notable unless if you have been mentioned in reliable sources. Aasim (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - a non-notable YouTuber; misuse of Wikipedia as an advertising space Spiderone 10:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, MySpace, Who's Who, or some other method of self-promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Barely found anything about her. Article is definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Joseph Pisenti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional autobiographical article on an individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. All sources used in the article are unreliable and a before search doesn’t turn up anything substantial ether. This is a blatant WP:GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm still working on this article and I only published it so other editors can add too. I have taken the precaution of saving the code though. There are many sources to this and I will add them soon. So please don't delete it.
RealLifeLorefan80 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Also note that I am not promoting anything. I'm just inspired by Pisenti's videos and tried to make a page similar to Sam Denby. I know my username says RealLifeLore in it but it clearly has "fan" in it.
RealLifeLorefan80 (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
But Once I find more reliable sources, can I redo the article?
RealLifeLorefan80 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete We need to forcefully apply out anti-autobiography policies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete To answer your question RealLifeLorefan80, if the article is deleted and you can provide further evidence of notability you may absolutely recreate the article. It will most likely have to withstand another AfD so make sure to include strong reliable sources. DO NOT be discouraged by the haters here on this platform. Some have nothing better to do with their time than sit on Wikipedia trashing the hard work of others just because they don't like it. Wikipedia is not here as their personal encyclopedia containing only what they deem as important. In regards to the current article, I agree with the nominator, who put a lot of effort into a search, that the subject does not, yet, meet notability criteria for inclusion. I say delete as per WP:GNG & WP:TOOSOON. To fan80, keeping working and digging for sources and please continue editing and creating here. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- No worries, I agree with Celestina007 and your suggestion. Thanks for your kind message. I won't be discouraged and I'll keep making new articles and contribute for a long time. RealLifeLorefan80 (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V, zero WP:RS for a WP:BLP, and WP:NOTRESUME. In 2008, we could WP:AGF, but in 2021, this is a thumb in the eye. We literally can't even verify this person exists. I see the consensus that YouTubers are rarely notable, much as my boyfriend. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's a lie, he's written a book and keep your boyfriend out of this. Though I am happy for it to be deleted. AussieCoinCollector (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The Wonderful World of Stu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable television program. Mainly filled with unreferenced trivia. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Mica Shemper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe it is way WP:TOOSOON for a biographical article on her. As of now WP:NACTOR isn’t satisfied and she doesn’t seem to possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources thus fails to WP: GNG also. A before search shows she is mentioned predominantly in passing. Celestina007 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Stranger Things (season 4) § Cast and characters. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it should be kept until there is more information about her I am actively researching her and making a rough copy in word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editiex (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Strong delete The rule for notability is multiple significant roles in notable productions. There is no sourcing, so this fails verifiability. As part of a ongoing TV show, we may be safe in saying her role is within a notable production. For the record I have watched Stranger Things Seasons 1-3 (in way to little time for overall health, but that is a different issue, I did take long to watch all three seasons than my wife, but that is also a different story). However there is no evidence that Shemper will have a role significant to the overall series, or that the role even in Season 4 will rise to the level of significance. Even if that were the case, the multiple significant prong means that no way is ever notable for their opening role. The one exception is if the rule becomes super tied into a cult classic, which is very rare, and even less likely when we are talking about a multi-episode TV show. The article admitting we know very little of the actress is a good reason why we should not have the article. At this point a redirect would not be justified, because there is not enough known of the character to justify it. The season is not yet released, so this is not a situation like Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman and Elizabeth Barondes and Lois and Clark. Ms. Barondes was listed among the lead cast in the first two episodes, but then she never reappeared. Near the end of the next season when they brought her character back, it was with a different actress, and then in a later season when she would have been there under virtually any circumstances, they came up with a contrived reason to not have her there, and have a new relative fill in for the role of Lois' missing sister at the wedding.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - the article itself says Not much is known about the child actress yet. which is basically an admission that this fails WP:GNG. With WP:NACTOR not being met either, there is no good reason to keep Spiderone 20:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Absolutely no coverage available. Does not seem to even support a redirect as suggested above. Redoryxx (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per everyone else. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with everyone else, especially Spiderone. It is too soon and can be added at a later date if they deserve an article. Right now, it seems like a promo or puff piece. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Leo Picon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a clearly attempt to use Wikipedia as a means of promotion. It's full of paid content and was created for a long-term and globally locked abuser and with dozen of proven sock puppets. Unsurprisingly, the article doesn't exist at the Pt.WP where people can read Portuguese. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 00:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 02:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform to promote individuals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Green Valley, Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and unreferenced former place. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GEOLAND. WestCD (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see how WP:GEOLAND applies. This isn't a populated place, nor a disputed region, nor a natural feature. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Does not appear in GNIS (only as a valley in another county); unverified lines do not pass GEOLAND just because it uses the word "town". Newspapers.com results are all about a golf course. Recreation welcome if WP:V is satisfied. Reywas92Talk 07:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete this unsourced rubbish. What is with this "a very large number of people". As best I can tell the place in question never exceeded 1 black smith shop and "2 lodges", by the time people moved to Green Valley the other place had already lost population, and Green Valley was just one of three places the people moved to. Wikipedia requires verrification which we have none of here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: It was plainly a rural community recognized in the area, per the sourcing I quickly added. I do not see it in GNIS or on any USGS maps (apparently too rural an area to have detailed USGS maps when the name was in more common use in the early 20th century).--Milowent • hasspoken 16:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Noticed you added some sourcing — do you think the article should be kept? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that is my personal opinion, as a "populated places without legal recognition", but since it is not in GNIS, I figured I would just see how the consensus develops. It is amazing how unpopulated much of the United States is.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Noticed you added some sourcing — do you think the article should be kept? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Unanimous keep amongst all !votes. Originally closed with keep, but the closer withdrew. Nominator disputed the first close and received a unanimous agreement in the deletion dispute that closure was appropriate. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Deviprasad Dwivedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. His only relevance lies in being awarded the Padma Bhushan (which is a passing achievement even on national level), as suggested by the article itself. Fails WP:SIGCOV too as there are no "reliable secondary sources" that cover him. Not a single citation in the article is helpful and a simple google search does not yield a single source which covered him independently. Its ironical that they describe him as a writer when his whole bibliography is trivial. Average linguistics student write more often than him. This article may very well be worthy of being speedy deleted. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 18:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 18:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Keep (Author Vote): The fact that the subject of the article is a recipient of Padma Bhushan, the third highest Indian civilian award, is enough to accord him notability per WP:ANYBIO. Padma Bhushan has been awarded to only 1270 people in a country of 1.35 billion people and by any standards, is a major award. He has also received Padma Shri, which is the fourth highest Indian civilian award (3005 awardees so far since its inception in 1954).--jojo@nthony (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- WP:ANYBIO first paragraph- "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Based on its standard, when wikipedia quotes "major award" then it implies that to be on a global level. And globally, Padma Bhushan is not even recognizable. Padma Vibhushan and Bharat Ratna maybe termed as "major awards" but Bhushan definitely does not. If it'd have been a major award, then he'd have received sufficient coverage, atleast locally, thus cancelling my point and passing the basic requirement for notability.
- But we are not here to dispute whether PB is major or not. We are talking about the subject. And the subject is nor, even slightly, acknowledged neither is he, even locally, well-covered by any form of sources. None of his works have "made widely recognized contributions" towards any field. And it was very uncharacteristic of an experienced and respected editor like you to create an BLP category article with information cited by below-average sources. I'm confident that you know that TOI is not considered a reliable source but still, you've cited sources like Patrika News? And even in these trivial sources, he is not the "subject" of the article but just a "passing mention". One of the pdf's you've cited even crashed my device due to some virus it carried. I couldn't dare to open the other one. LOL! Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 06:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pesticide1110: It is not in anyone's interest that we dispute about Padma Bhushan; I have been involved in many discussions in the past where editors from outside India disputing the notability of the Padma Awards while Indian editors strongly opposing them, citing the size of Indian population and the rarity of the awards compared to the population size. Coming to this article, the issue is that the subject's expertise and notability is in Sanskrit, an almost defunct language, nurtured only by a few institutions in India, and that too, only for academic purposes. Another reason why the sources are too few to come by, apart from the poor popularity of Sanskrit, is because Dwivedi is alive; in India, people get news coverage mostly on their deaths, unless of course, there are other reasons, positive or negative. I may be able to get more references if I go to the press coverage of Indian Republic Day honors of 2017 but it would not serve any purpose unless one agrees that the recipient of Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri is notable by virtue of those awards. That the subject has sat or sits in such boards such as the disciplinary committee of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, and the committee of the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, and heads Kashi Vishwanath Temple are poor arguments, if the importance of Padma Awards are ignored.--jojo@nthony (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it is the consequence of winning an award that makes one notable. India, howsoever bad state it may be in, is still a better place than any African country in terms of coverage. To be fair, i don't get what you're trying to imply with this reply. It just didn't make any sense to me. If the work's good enough, why won't it garner attention? Your own Arundhati Roy came out of nowhere and made a mark everywhere. She was not priviledged to be a member of these associations. One of my traits is that i only consider the subject. If the subject is good enough then howsoever worse the article may be, i'll help its cause. But the subject itself here is, for me, incompetent because he has done nothing so good as to receive any award. But that's not for me to decide. I can go on and cancel out every single point of yours as i'm in heavy advantage here but the thread has already become too long because of us. We should let others decide. Best of Luck Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 08:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pesticide1110: I am sorry that my reply did not make any sense to you. I was just indicating that the notability of Padma Awards, and thus of the subject, is the main issue here; not the quality of the article, nor the references (otherwise, Wikipedia would not have allowed stub articles). Anyway, let others decide.--jojo@nthony (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it is the consequence of winning an award that makes one notable. India, howsoever bad state it may be in, is still a better place than any African country in terms of coverage. To be fair, i don't get what you're trying to imply with this reply. It just didn't make any sense to me. If the work's good enough, why won't it garner attention? Your own Arundhati Roy came out of nowhere and made a mark everywhere. She was not priviledged to be a member of these associations. One of my traits is that i only consider the subject. If the subject is good enough then howsoever worse the article may be, i'll help its cause. But the subject itself here is, for me, incompetent because he has done nothing so good as to receive any award. But that's not for me to decide. I can go on and cancel out every single point of yours as i'm in heavy advantage here but the thread has already become too long because of us. We should let others decide. Best of Luck Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 08:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pesticide1110: It is not in anyone's interest that we dispute about Padma Bhushan; I have been involved in many discussions in the past where editors from outside India disputing the notability of the Padma Awards while Indian editors strongly opposing them, citing the size of Indian population and the rarity of the awards compared to the population size. Coming to this article, the issue is that the subject's expertise and notability is in Sanskrit, an almost defunct language, nurtured only by a few institutions in India, and that too, only for academic purposes. Another reason why the sources are too few to come by, apart from the poor popularity of Sanskrit, is because Dwivedi is alive; in India, people get news coverage mostly on their deaths, unless of course, there are other reasons, positive or negative. I may be able to get more references if I go to the press coverage of Indian Republic Day honors of 2017 but it would not serve any purpose unless one agrees that the recipient of Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri is notable by virtue of those awards. That the subject has sat or sits in such boards such as the disciplinary committee of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, and the committee of the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, and heads Kashi Vishwanath Temple are poor arguments, if the importance of Padma Awards are ignored.--jojo@nthony (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- But we are not here to dispute whether PB is major or not. We are talking about the subject. And the subject is nor, even slightly, acknowledged neither is he, even locally, well-covered by any form of sources. None of his works have "made widely recognized contributions" towards any field. And it was very uncharacteristic of an experienced and respected editor like you to create an BLP category article with information cited by below-average sources. I'm confident that you know that TOI is not considered a reliable source but still, you've cited sources like Patrika News? And even in these trivial sources, he is not the "subject" of the article but just a "passing mention". One of the pdf's you've cited even crashed my device due to some virus it carried. I couldn't dare to open the other one. LOL! Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 06:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Almost every single person who has ever received a Padma Bhushan has their own WP article. This is far more than just a “passing” achievement. This is not just a local society or industry award. In fact, there is a specific WP page just for the List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (2010–2019) and then separate articles for almost every single awardee. This alone suggests that Dr. Dwivedi is almost certainly notable if everyone else who received the award is notable. He also appears to have been a department head at a University aside from the other accomplishments listed. The country of India felt he was noteworthy enough to bestow one of it’s highest awards for his accomplishments, whether we think he was worthy of it or not.--Monteboat (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I contend that this Keep vote is motivated by the fact that i also voted in favour of keeping Megan Smolenyak which was nominated for deletion by him. There have been incidents of almost every single award being awarded unreasonably to someone who did not deserve it. This could be one of those instances as well. Winning an award can never make someone notable. It's the consequences. That's why you'll always find "passing this does not guarantee notability" above almost every notability guideline. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 16:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 09:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Not seeing any arguments to convince me that the Padma Bhushan is insufficient to confer notability per ANYBIO. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
DeleteWeak keep.I'm not seeing any significant coverage of the subject. Being briefly mentioned in (mostly unreliable) sources does not mean the subject passes GNG. – DarkGlow (✉) 12:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)After points made by Tachs, I am withdrawing my deletion vote, and replacing it with a weak keep. This article needs work, but there is notability scope here. – DarkGlow (✉) 14:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @DarkGlow: The main question here is not of coverage, but if Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri, the third and fourth highest civilian awards of a country like India with a population of 1.35 billion people make their recipient notable. These awards, instituted in 1954, have only a total number of 4275 recipients so far. The awards are given by the Government of India. Both the awards have multiple Wiki pages attached to them, which indicates their importance. My rationale while creating the article was that a person, who has won both the awards must definitely be notable, an argument supported by WP:ANYBIO.--jojo@nthony (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Tachs: Per WP:SIGCOV, there are only passing mentions of Dwivedi online. I'd recommend working on the article in a draftspace, since there is certainly scope for an article here. And, only 4275 recipients? That's a lot of people... – DarkGlow (✉) 13:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @DarkGlow: 4275 recipients from 1.35 billion people, spanning 67 years. One may compare it with 'Queen's Honors' though the latter covers significantly less number of people. If a person is notable by one norm, we do not need to check WP:SIGCOV. Further, WP:CONTN suggests that notability is not based on the content of the article; the article is likely to get more editor attention along the way, in the case of BLPs, definitely after the demise of the subject.--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Tachs: Then that's a case of WP:TOOSOON. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 15:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pesticide1110: It seems that we are missing the point again. I was mentioning about the notability of the subject as the recipient of two major Indian civilian awards. Even if the article is deficient content-wise (that's what the editor implied, he stated, "there is certainly scope for an article here"), it does not affect notability (per WP:CONTN).--jojo@nthony (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your point is that he is notable per WP:ANYBIO and my point is that passing 1 criteria of it does not overrule blatantly failing WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG and WP:SNG because the latter ones are basic notability criterions rather than additional ones. This viewpoint is agreed here. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 02:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pesticide1110: If you do not want to consider WP:ANYBIO, consider WP:NACADEMIC which states (as point #2) The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The subject of this article has two major national awards (the third and fourth highest in his country) in the category "Literature and Education". Anyway, this discussion is dragging endlessly and I would rather utilize my time elsewhere. Thanks.--jojo@nthony (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- I doubt that Padma Bhushan can be considered an academic award (awarded by a notable foundation or trust) based on the specific criteria guideline on the same page. I need some admins to sort this out cuz im not sure. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 15:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I came here from Village Pump (policy) discussion link. It seems true that as Pesticide1110 says, from article or sources which I went through, it is not clear exactly for what awardee has been awarded. May be even lack of significant coverage can be an issue.
- But still two of comments of Pesticide1110 in this discussion more than strange. I don't know why passes judgement "...But the subject itself here is, for me, incompetent because he has done nothing so good as to receive any award....". There are example in this world where noble peace awards are awarded just in anticipation that some one will do some thing, and M.K. Gandhi never getting an award in spite of significant coverage..."
- An author or an activist can always get an award for books or activism or whatever other qualities sans proper media coverage, May be Pesticide1110 knows the fellow personally and may be in his personal view his accomplishment is not important enough, but I don't know how does that gives one moral right to take potshots.
- Similarly Pesticide1110 seems to present his best attitude with comments like 'your PDF did not open lol', I suppose Wikipedians can do better than this.
- Thanks Bookku (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Bookku: I can see what you are trying to imply here. Regarding the pdf stuff, i can not really understand why you think that i was being disrespectful (or similar). That pdf really brought virus alongwith it as detected by my anti-virus. Adding "lol" was somewhat natural considering how over-cautious i am to not download a file just because it poses a threat. And i have put many points until now to justify why i branded him "incompetent". My brother is an author and he has written 19 books. We both agree that he has a long way to go to become even a "good writer". Unlike Deviprasad whose books are only published because he is an educator in Sampurnanand University (the publisher of all of his books), my brother has got his books published by different publications. So what makes this subject who has written just 4 or 5 books a writer? But somehow he has received Padma Bhushan for literature and education. Sums up India for me. See this - RTI exposes Padma awards. This is around the same time the subject got his award and the subject was a Union Public Service Commission member as well. I have done extensive research on the subject since the past 2 weeks (and so can everyone else) and i've come to the correct realisation that the subject does not deserve an article when so many authors (who have written many books compared to him) are denied an article everyday because they "do not pass GNG or SNG". What remains is to prove it. And i'll keep digging more information out for my case till i am allowed to do so. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 15:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pesticide1110: May be expressing your PoV is valid at personal level or may be @ other social media too, but what I mean to say is commenting as per policy about significant coverage and availability of refs should be more than enough. One can have personal PoVs whether Trump did any thing or not or Obama did some thing as much of a noble peace prize but Wikipedians are usually supposed to refrain from passing out personal opinions. Actually I don't have Phd in rules and I don't expect others to have one but I had a feeling that comment was from personal opinion/feelings and that seems to have come true from your comment. ThanksBookku (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Bookku I have a bad habit where my sympathy for one turns into hatred towards some other person. But we all have flaws. Jojo is a great editor and i respect him very much. It was a great disappointment to me that i'll get his article deleted but now it does not seem that the humongous effort i put into this will yield even a tiny effect. That's it. Up to whatever all of you decide. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 16:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- I doubt that Padma Bhushan can be considered an academic award (awarded by a notable foundation or trust) based on the specific criteria guideline on the same page. I need some admins to sort this out cuz im not sure. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 15:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pesticide1110: If you do not want to consider WP:ANYBIO, consider WP:NACADEMIC which states (as point #2) The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The subject of this article has two major national awards (the third and fourth highest in his country) in the category "Literature and Education". Anyway, this discussion is dragging endlessly and I would rather utilize my time elsewhere. Thanks.--jojo@nthony (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your point is that he is notable per WP:ANYBIO and my point is that passing 1 criteria of it does not overrule blatantly failing WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG and WP:SNG because the latter ones are basic notability criterions rather than additional ones. This viewpoint is agreed here. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 02:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pesticide1110: It seems that we are missing the point again. I was mentioning about the notability of the subject as the recipient of two major Indian civilian awards. Even if the article is deficient content-wise (that's what the editor implied, he stated, "there is certainly scope for an article here"), it does not affect notability (per WP:CONTN).--jojo@nthony (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Tachs: Then that's a case of WP:TOOSOON. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 15:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @DarkGlow: 4275 recipients from 1.35 billion people, spanning 67 years. One may compare it with 'Queen's Honors' though the latter covers significantly less number of people. If a person is notable by one norm, we do not need to check WP:SIGCOV. Further, WP:CONTN suggests that notability is not based on the content of the article; the article is likely to get more editor attention along the way, in the case of BLPs, definitely after the demise of the subject.--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Tachs: Per WP:SIGCOV, there are only passing mentions of Dwivedi online. I'd recommend working on the article in a draftspace, since there is certainly scope for an article here. And, only 4275 recipients? That's a lot of people... – DarkGlow (✉) 13:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.