Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< December 14	December 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality, California

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

One quality this place did not possess is permanence, as there is nothing at all there today. According to various topos and aerials, there was a siding here along with at least one large warehouse-like building and some other buildings. One topo labels the whole thing the Quality Ranch. No sign of a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an important article which will likely have no expansion in the future. Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This location has no significant notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kareem Knights

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY --BlameRuiner (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails
WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 17:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali-Naghi Farmanfarmaian

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

Doesn't seem to be notable, and the sources appear to have been written by his relatives. Based on its current condition, it needs to be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 23:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article states that he was president of The Bank of Industries, which was merged with other banks to form Bank of Industry and Mine after the Iranian Revolution. I'm not sure whether that makes him notable or not, so I'll just leave it to the community. Keivan.f^Talk 23:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:MILL. CEO of a bank that was later merged into a larger bank. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable bank president.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamad bin Khalifa Al Nahyan

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

There is no any reliable sources of Hamad bin Khalifa Al Nahyan being part of the Al Nahyan Royal family. All the references are related to Israeli football club or singer Omer Adam. His site and his organisation sites are registered several months ago. There is no any information in Arabic about him. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep his purchase was covered the past few days in all israeli major and reliable news sources and all refer to him as part of the nahyan royal family. Second, just by purchasing this importent team makes him worthy of an article on wikipedia, let alone being muslem or arab purchasing such an anti arab football team. All those reasons, each one and all together is the rason this article be kept.Midrashah (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beitar Jerusalem F.C. as only claim to fame is ownership of that club. No independent notability that I can see. Giant Snowman 22:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:Keep tons of news about this purchase in Arabic media, just google بيتار القدس all mentioning that he is part of the royal family, much of it being critical of the Sheikh for investing in a Zionist team, if the fact that he is part of the Al Nahyan Royal Family would at all be debatable they would dig it up and publish it. Also the government of UAE would surely speak up, if someone would just claim to be part of the royal family without any basis.
talk) 22:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Agree he is otherwise not so far notable. Disagree the purchase doesn't confer notability, it's a huge move and highly controversial yet over time looks shaped to be an important part of the future of Arab-Israeli relations. I'd wait, TBH... I know, I know, WP:NOTNEWS but anyone with a passing interest in the region will tell you this is (depending on POV, for better or worse) a big, long-term deal. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepXavierGreen (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
update just saw this from an Israeli publication כאן חדשות Documents testify: The investor in Betar Jerusalem - a member of the distant circle of the ruling family ^{talk) 20:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]}

Keep I think this is borderline notability, but it seems like this person will continue to get additional coverage in the future. Several sources also describe him as the son of
talk) 01:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lot of keep votes here but very little in them that point to sources clearly indicating gng. More discussion needed I think.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wallyfromdilbert, That is exactly the case. He is not a son of Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, being a very distant relative of a ruling family, who changed his name several years ago. He is known only for purchasing the Beitar and while it's itself a news, I don't belive it grants an independant article Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

comment @Fenix down: I believe the page has enough to satisfy the GNG here are some reputable sources:

talk) 17:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep.
Plenty of coverage. N.B.: Not a fan. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. The coverage is related to one recent event only. The notability is not inherited. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The whole story is very strange. This reference 'https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/uae-owner-of-jerusalem-soccer-club-says-door-open-to-arab-players-1.9357016', which is supposed to be one of the most respectable sources in Israel, calls him "the son of the United Arab Emirates' President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan", while Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan has only two sons - Sultan and Mohammed! So, how can we believe all these sources, if even most respectable of them do not check facts. There are no references to anyone named "Hamad bin Khalifa Al Nahyan" on any of the UAE official sites, as well as no any arabic news about him. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment response: @

talk) 03:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply The Hebrew words for Prince, Chief, and President are the same, so the error may be in translation rather than in fact. The word (nasi, sorry I can't type Hebrew letters on my machine) is more vague in Hebrew than in English and it would not be inaccurate to describe his father as such. This may have then been translated incorrectly as "President" at which point a copy editor in English may have noticed the "President" had the "wrong" name and "fixed" it. Without seeing the original Hebrew I have no way of knowing, though. In any case, that's not a reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Shemtovca, no this is not my argument. My argument is that he is not member of the ruling family of Dubai, he is a distant relative, who changed his name several years ago. Hence he is known only for purchase of Beitar. The notability is not inherited, so, I don't see any reason for him having an independant article. Smartyllama, the translation does not matter - he is not a member of a ruling family, he is distant relative. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply @Arthistorian1977:

1) majority of media coverage disagrees with you and refers to him as a member of the ruling family, wikipedia pages need to be based on the coverage / reliable sources. See sources cited above.

2) The notability is also based on media coverage that predates the purchase of Beitar see ^[10] & ^[11]

talk) 21:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep per sources shown during this AfD. If this turns out to be a one event story I would change my vote in a second round of AfD but I think there are going to be more sources to come. Spudlace (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "מסמכים מעידים: המשקיע בבית"ר ירושלים - חבר במעגל הרחוק של משפחת השלטון". כאן-תאגיד השידור הישראלי. Retrieved 2020-12-09.
^ "UAE and Israeli healthcare companies join forces". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Retrieved 2020-12-16.
^ "מסמכים מעידים: המשקיע בבית"ר ירושלים - חבר במעגל הרחוק של משפחת השלטון". כאן-תאגיד השידור הישראלי. Retrieved 2020-12-16.
^ "Soccer-Israel's Beitar Jerusalem says Abu Dhabi ruling family member looks to buy stake". nationalpost. Retrieved 2020-12-16.
^ Staff, Reuters (2020-12-08). "Abu Dhabi ruling family member buys 50% stake in Beitar Jerusalem". Reuters. Retrieved 2020-12-16. {{cite news}}: |first= has generic name (help)
^ Swissa, Eran (2020-10-11). "Israeli pop star Omer Adam celebrates Simchat Torah in Dubai". JNS.org. Retrieved 2020-12-16.
^ staff, T. O. I. "Sheikh who bought into Beitar Jerusalem vows to show anti-Arab fans the light". www.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved 2020-12-16.
^ "Dubai sheikhs throw party for Israel's biggest pop star". ynetnews. 2020-10-25. Retrieved 2020-12-16.
^ "New Emirati owner of Jerusalem soccer club says 'door open' to Arab players". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 2020-12-16.
^ "UAE and Israeli healthcare companies join forces". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Retrieved 2020-12-20.
^ "Dubai sheikhs throw party for Israel's biggest pop star". ynetnews. 2020-10-25. Retrieved 2020-12-20.

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 procedural close. Article is already at AfD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazi Bismillah khan

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

Unsourced one-liner BLP, there is already an existing Draft:Ghazi Bismillah khan by the same author with the same in formation so I can't move this JW 1961 Talk 22:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazi Bismillah khan

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

Unsourced recreation of an article previously deleted under A7. I don't know how the article looked back then, but there is nothing now to suggest the subject is notable. I have not found any sources either. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced one-liner BLP. There is also an exact copy by the same creator at Draft:Ghazi Bismillah khan JW 1961 Talk 23:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced with no sign of notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:MILL. Unclear allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryuki Matsuya

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

This is essentially the same case as

WP:GNG fail. Geschichte (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed. Looking at Soccerway each of his appearances appears to have been for 2-3 minutes per match. Giant Snowman 11:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't figure out what the Japanese version of his name is as there appear to be different translations for both of his names. For English coverage at least (which is the main language for Singapore football news), there is nothing to suggest that he can pass GNG, which is hardly surprising considering that he has only played 8 12 mins of professional sport. Spiderone 13:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This needs a lot better sourcing before it can be proven that it can be a full-fledged article.Katemeshi101 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. -Cupper52 (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ronaldinho. Closing early due to solid consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Ronaldinho

)

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

Per this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect back to parent article per recent AFD consensus (see e.g. this and this. Giant Snowman 22:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the content is not large enough that it requires a separate list and he's not even in the top 5 top scorers for Brazil let alone the top scorer Spiderone 14:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to parent article per above comments. Same for all similar articles. // Timothy :: talk 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arjen Robben. Closing due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Arjen Robben

)

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

Per this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect back to parent article per recent AFD consensus (see e.g. this and this. Giant Snowman 22:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I feel this one can be merged back also. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - no reason for this to have its own article Spiderone 10:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and please collapse (hide) this table in the merged article because this is very detailed. Such a merge would still be better than redirect, the other option that crossed my mind. Kudos to User:Bait30 for the invested nomination! gidonb (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to parent article per above comments. I believe the consensus is for a merge or redirect for all similar articles. // Timothy :: talk 20:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Zissou (jurist)

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

Aside from an implausible unsourced section - this guy's claim to fame is having the same name as a fictional character. Paul ❬talk❭ 21:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 21:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 21:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the controversies section is
WP:OR as it stands. Geschichte (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:GNG and more specifically User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability. I've never heard of him, although he was an assistant DA in Queens. It appears he was in the past a co-worker of my best friend from high school. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Zissou is not a lawyer. He's a criminal masquerading as a lawyer. Any and all marketing assistance he receives, like a Wikipedia page, subjects unsuspecting clients to theft of their money followed by long periods of prison time. POSTED 12DEC20 by Howard Leventhal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlev3 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing that is a claim to fame is he allegedly got a reference to him as a prominent lawyer, basically a free add, at the end of a film that happened to unintentionally use his name. Even if there was a full length film that was a fictionalized version of his life, that would not make him clearly notable. In this case it is a passing mention, film companies are not our standard sources for what lawyers are notable, "prominent" is not notable, and the prepondenance of evidence suggests Zissou is not "prominent". He does not meet the one somewhat useable test we have for lawyers (which has not been adopted officially, but it is better than just declaring any lawyer who spends enough on advertising notable. When a three or four paragrpah article is mentioning when the subject made a motion for a trial to be declared to have a hung jury, it is pretty clear the subject is not notable. Even being the actual DA in Queens is not going to be a sign of true notability, there are DAs or county prosecutors as is the Michigan equivalent, who are notable, such as Kym Worthy, and others go on to become notable, such as the soon to be vice president of the United States. I would not be surprised if most Queen DAs pass notability, but assistant DAs rarely do (Kym Worthy might have been notable back when she was in a position that in other states would be called assistant DA, she lead out in prosecuting Budzyn and Nevers for allegedly murdering Malice Green, this was the biggest trial in Detroit in the 1990s, and recieved coverage outside Michigan, although as a metro-Detroit resident, I have no easy sense of how much. For the record I created the article on Worthy. That was back in 2008, so she was county prosecutor for about 4 years before there was an article on her, so no one ever had to justify having an article on her before she was county prosecutor).John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Softcom

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

A7 borderline eligible UPE article on a non notable organization that falls short of

WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. I probably should have used the A7 but from my experience in dealing with UPE I have observed an AFD is imperative for a future G4 use. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm sure you know what you're doing, but I have a hard time connecting the dots here. I took a quick look at these sources [2][3][4], and they seem to provide some coverage of the subject. I was also able to find additional sources online with a cursory search on Google News. I'll take a closer look at them later (I need to go AFK for a bit) but I'm curious as to why you think they don't meet the standards of
WP:ORGCRIT
? It's possible that the articles are not independent of the subject (this happens all the time in the business world), but the sources themselves don't say they were written by Softcom.

Also, I'm skeptical of the UPE allegation, mainly because the work is of such a poor quality that I have a hard time believing that anyone is paying for it. If it's true, then someone's not getting their money's worth. But I'm not involved in the case, so I'm just sharing my observation. Edge3 (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RS we consider to be unreliable. I’m happy to provide further clarifications if you need me to. Celestina007 (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Thank you. I've taken a closer look at the sources, along with another one I just found, and I agree that they do not establish a sufficient amount of significant coverage. The standard of review is specified in
WP:UPE allegation, since it's not relevant to determining notability for AfD purposes. Edge3 (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
WP:ORGCRIT is the most significant link to use to evaluate company pages. Unfortunately, none of the references listed above, on the page itself, or found in a Google search meet this criteria.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. While there is some in-depth coverage about the company, the press articles are mostly
WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Morgan (actress)

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

Doesn't appear to be particlarly notable; most film appearances appear to be bit-part roles in unnotable B-movies. All refs are to listings and IMdB. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she appeared in 1 film we almost have an article on, except that is an article on the multi-film series she was in 1 film of. There is nothing to suggest she is even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and User:Johnpacklambert Spiderone 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At best I'd also propose a move to draft until better sources are found. Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 22:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to IMDb, she has a major role in #LawstinWoods, a television web series which appears in our list of notable such entities, though does not have a separate article. There are several upcoming roles in IMDb, including something that might be another Camp Blood film. Userifying in case the subject becomes notable in the future might be an option, if the creator desired that. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - No objections to draftifying or recreating once notability's been established but until then no valid reason to keep this around, Obviously failed GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social Credit-National Unity

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

"Social Credit-National Unity" was not a party, merely the banner used by a single candidate in a single election, who won a paltry 1.1% of the vote.

And that's about all we know for certain. About half the article (which, granted, is so short that "half" amounts to only a few sentences) is spent talking about each half of the banner, and saying it's unclear whether the candidate actually had the backing of either party, or if he had any affiliation with a similarly-named "National Unity" candidate. If there's so little information out there on what this political designation even meant, it's hard to say this justifies its own article. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significance and lasting importance, making whatever coverage there is, trivial. Geschichte (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is really just a biography of an unsuccessful (and therefore non-notable per
reliable source coverage about the party, and this article isn't showing any of that either. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National-Unity (candidate)

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

"National-Unity" was the ballot designation of a single candidate in a single election. It is apparently the candidate's personal variation on the

"National Government" label that the Conservatives used at the time, as he was endorsed by the party and ran with their full support. With that in mind, there isn't a compelling reason why the banner merits its own article, and that the information— the little there is— can't be covered on the Conservative Party's page, under the section that deals with their one-off use of "National Government". (Indeed, there's so little here that there's a sentence to say it's unknown if the candidate had any affiliation with another candidate who used a similar banner…) — Kawnhr (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is really just a biography of an unsuccessful (and therefore non-notable per
reliable source coverage about the party, and this article isn't showing any of that either. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition Party (Canada)

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

The "Prohibition Party" was the ballot designation of a single candidate in a single election. Said candidate received 0.8% of the vote. There's nothing to suggest this was a real, organized party, or that the person and/or their candidacy was in any way notable. In fact, there's so little to say about this so-called party that the page has remained unchanged (except a calculation of their vote percentage) since its creation in 2004, and I can't foresee any significant information being uncovered about a forgotten fringe candidate. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant information into Prohibition in Canada. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is really just a biography of an unsuccessful (and therefore non-notable per
reliable source coverage about the party, and this article isn't showing any of that either. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep.

WP:SK2 - bad-faith AfD nomination by a pretty obvious sock. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Nicholas Alahverdian

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

This article fails

WP:GNG and is a BLP1E. The article may have many references but he was not a public figure with notability enough for a encyclopedia article. Aroundthebends (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Aroundthebends, Who are you? Why have these been your first edits? Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 17:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Rated C-Class in all WikiProjects it’s in interest of. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG as it did when it was nominated a year ago Spiderone 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article passes all the criteria you said it didn't (
WP:BIO). Please consider making more edits before proposing the deletion of any article, especially one like this in such good standing. You have only made 4 Wikipedia edits and they are all on this article. Coreykai (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep no change since last time(s). Nomination by a
WP:SPA, also see recent disruption by others. SPI may be warranted as well.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep Subject meets the GNG and these repeated nominations, frankly, stink. Miniapolis 23:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination by obvious SPA. The article subject satisfies the GNG and is well referenced. ♟♙ (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Singh (film producer)

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

Fails

WP:GNG. The sources provided are all paid articles and do not add up to establishing notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:MILL. He funded two films. So what? Bearian (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I'm not seeing any real claim to notability here Spiderone 13:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K N George

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

not notable, not written in an encyclopediac tone VERSACESPACE 16:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 16:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete does not meet any of the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A
WP:NPROF criteria 2 and 3 (awards and positions in international bodies, VP of the IASSW and President of the ASSWI). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not seeing enough to pass NPROF/GNG. I don't see why "VP of the IASSW and President of the ASSWI" should be sufficient, those are minor bodies that nobody even bothered to stub here yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough sourcing to meet
WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment "minor bodies ... nobody has bothered to stub yet" ... International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW).--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does the directorship of the
WP:NPROF C6? Am I correct that the relationship of the school with the University of Madras is similar to that of e.g. Berkeley with the U California system? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The equivalent would be more like one of the autonomous colleges within the University of Oxford system; nevertheless, I would agree that he still qualifies for C6. Depending on the survey MSSW is ranked 3rd or 4th best social work school in India. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calico, Kern County, California

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

A siding apparently put in to serve a warehouse complex that is still in business at the same location; the original building is still in use. Just another NN rail spot. Mangoe (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: you really should consider using Wikipedia:Proposed deletion for uncontroversial deletions. Jeepday (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Views are split fairly evenly between keep, redirect and delete and I don't think there's going to be any agreement soon. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese sandwich

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

This one seems to be a catchall for any sandwich made with cheese. All of the mentioned sandwiches also have their own articles, and there is no source that ties them all together as a single topic or supports the first-sentence definition of a "basic" cheese sandwich. Any content that could be added here should instead be used to expand the main Sandwich article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep The nomination does not seem to contain a reason to delete; it seems to be a vague sort of
WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as it stands this article is really nothing more than an eleborate dictionary definition. Nothing suggests this can easily be changed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is not a word; it's a phrase. It contains no etymology, pronunciation, spelling nor grammar. It could hardly be less like a dictionary entry. See
WP:DICDEF for an explanation of the difference and the "perennial source of confusion". Andrew🐉(talk) 21:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Andrew. ser! (let's discuss it). 01:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you need to declare a
Phil Bridger (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Ha! Didn't even know that one myself, that gave me a good chuckle. ser! (let's discuss it). 13:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issue here is that there are no sources talking about actual Cheese Sandwiches here. Almost all of the content of this article, which also accounts for most of the sources, are on Grilled cheese sandwiches, which already has its own, separate article, making most of this page redundant. The other two sources are also not on "cheese sandwiches", but on sandwiches that just happen to include cheese on them (the source on the "pickle and cheese sandwich", for example, is actually on pickles). I'm not discounting there being some sources on "cheese sandwiches", but just a cursory look for sources just turns up results that are either just recipes, or talking about Grilled cheese. Unless sources turn up during this AFD that actually talk about cheese sandwiches as a distinct entity, separate from Grilled Cheese, then the content here really can't stay. If nothing else, then it could probably be Merged & Redirected to that article. Rorshacma (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of sandwiches or Grilled cheese. There are a wide variety of sandwiches, many of which include cheese as an ingredient, but that doesn't make all of them "cheese sandwiches" or that a notable topic to collate together under such a name. Rorshacma notes we already have Grilled cheese a specific type of sandwich, but we shouldn't have a duplicative article for any arbitrary food that can be put in bread in various combinations just to say "you can eat cheese on bread." Reywas92^Talk 02:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grilled cheese, the only really notable example, per Reywas92. A ham and cheese isn't a cheese sandwich, any more than a BLT is a lettuce sandwich. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak, weak keep. Besides grilled cheese, the British seem to like the humble ungrilled variety a lot: The Guardian calls it a "British lunchtime staple".[5] Delete the ham and cheese and breakfast sandwiches as blasphemous abominations. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of sandwiches, which I think is the better target, since there can be a simple ungrilled cheese sandwich. But the points brought up by others, that this isn't really about "cheese" sandwiches is valid. If better sourcing on the simple cheese sandwich is available then I would change my vote, but I can't find any (searches only turned up grilled cheese examples).Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems like a viable article. Counterproposals such as "redirect to list of sandwiches" would cause a loss of meaningful content, redirecting to "grilled cheese" fails a basic test since a grilled cheese sandwich is actually be a subset of cheese sandwiches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHateAccounts (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete outright Having looked the article over a couple of times, I am just not seeing the notion of cheese sandwiches as a whole as being shown to be notable. Once grilled cheese is taken out of the picture, none of the examples in the article actually are cheese sandwiches: they are all cases in which it is combined with some other filling. I could support a list of notable cheese sandwiches, were there one, but right now we are reduced to repeating the content of the grilled cheese article, and the obvious, banal, and uninformative statement that people use cheese as an ingredient in sandwiches. I don't see the point of redirecting to the list of sandwiches given that, it would appear, only a single entry in the list is a cheese sandwich. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is so obviously
whole cookbooks on the variety of cheese sandwiches. Improve it, don't delete it. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Could you give an example of a cheese sandwich cookbook? I didn't find anything like that in my search (just loads of stuff about grilled cheese), but it would certainly contribute to establishing notability. –dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As duplicative and trivial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of sandwiches. This is not notable for its own article unlike its cousin the grilled cheese. There is little to no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources about a basic cheese sandwich. Missvain (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are international agreements about this even. https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/eu-affairs/146285/banned-after-brexit-entering-the-eu-with-a-cheese-sandwich/ Google news shows 49,400 results. There are news articles in reliable sources about various types of cheese sandwiches, how to make them, reviews of them, etc. Dream Focus 13:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheese sandwich is very notable. Also, even if the current article is below par. It can be improved rather than be deleted.
talk) 17:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. While the topic may be notable, or at least of some interest, as noted by Mangoe above this article contains no worthwhile content, and there are no obvious venues of improvement or expansion. Sandstein 17:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no content in here other than summaries of other articles. At best, this is a disambiguation to Cheese and pickle sandwich / grilled cheese. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see this as a high-level article that likely won't include a great amount of text on its own apart from summaries of subtopics. We have cheese sandwich, grilled cheese, cheese dream, cheese on toast (?), melt sandwich, carrozza (sandwich), not to mention sandwiches which focus on the cheese even if there's also a protein like chopped cheese and others listed at Category:Cheese sandwiches. It's hard to argue that these sandwiches aren't related, but "grilled cheese" doesn't seem like the top-level subject that the rest grew out of. There are some sources, but it's a hard one to search for. It seems like if anything grilled cheese would be merged here, no? I'm not arguing that we should do that -- it's certainly independent notable -- but it seems odd to not have this article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to dab or convert to list, sort of per Rhododendrites. We have lots of articles about cheese sandwiches, and this is an extraordinarily plausible search term. Might as well give readers some place to find articles like: Cheese and pickle sandwich, Cheese dream, Grilled cheese, etc. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You're thinking of List of sandwiches. Maybe that should be organized some way by ingredients rather than alphabetically. Reywas92^Talk 23:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough—in which case, a redirect to List of sandwiches would not be amiss either. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of sandwiches, to cover all types of "cheese sandwich". Organizing by ingredients could create duplication, so creating a List of cheese sandwiches could work as well with sources like The Guardian one above. We can discuss organizing List of sandwiches on its talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G11/12.

(non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Melody Nayeri

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

Non-notable musician. ... discospinster _talk 16:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources fail to establish notability; they are either unreliable or primary or both Spiderone 21:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete-She was the main singer of Sher Yadet Nareh 2018 (Persian version of
Don’t Forget the Lyrics!)on Manoto TV^[1]
This show was very popular among the Iranian people

Dont Delete-She was the main singer of Sher Yadet Nareh 2018 (Persian version of
Don’t Forget the Lyrics!)on Manoto TV^[2]
Also,the news section of a reputable magazine has written about her in the field of music(jamsphere magazine)

Dont Delete-She Is notable musician — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radinkhan (talk • contribs) 02:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced that those sources are anywhere near enough even for

WP:BASIC, sorry Spiderone 10:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy delete as G12 as it is copyvio, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patch, California

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

I'm guessing that Durham calls this a locale, and the topos make things reasonably clear: there might have been a church in the area, but it appears to have been the sole structure there until a set of sidings was built to serve what is now the "Headquarters and Cold Storage" unit of Kirschenman Enterprises, whose business dates back to 1939. The spot is still in the midst of a patchwork of farmland outside Lamont, and I do not see that it is a notable location as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - unable to locate any sources to support that "Patch" (not to be confused with nearby "Weedpatch") ever supported a population. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Floehr

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

While the company he founded may be notable, not enough in-depth coverage about him for him to pass

WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per

WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Waqar Ihtisham

AfDs for this article:

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

Has never played in an official match for Pakistan nor in a game between two clubs playing in an

WP:GNG. Spiderone 15:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it might be worth considering
WP:SALT if consensus is to delete. Spiderone 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per

WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Muhammad Waheed

AfDs for this article:

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

Has never played in an official match for Pakistan nor in a game between two clubs playing in an

WP:GNG. Spiderone 15:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it might be worth considering
WP:SALT if consensus is to delete. Spiderone 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Belkin

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Avi Belkin

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

Insufficiently notable per WP:BIO Sonnenradical (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, almost too early in his career. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After creating this nomination, I noticed that the article was created and substantially edited by User:Belkinavi who is likely the subject of the article. So, in addition to the already mentioned notability concerns, there is also COI (Which of course is not, in itself a grounds for deletion). I noted this on the article's talk page as well Sonnenradical (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + the possible COI especially because of
WP:TOOSOON. BJackJS talk 19:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete very clearly a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have cleaned up the article from any puff, COI, and excessive information. gidonb (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, award-winning filmmaker. I have added info and sources. No grounds for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Meets
WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Changed to Speedy keep. Nominator created a dormant, double blank (user/talk_user) account in February 2019. On 15 December 2020, nom started and finished editing with the immediate nomination of just one single article and a COI comment on its talk page and here. Never touched anything but Avi Belkin. As I mentioned above, the nomination intro does not hold water. Even more about this nomination seems wrong. gidonb (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Meanwhile, the nominator has been blocked. Was a sockpuppet of a well-known sockpuppeteer. gidonb (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple RS articles on each of his last two movies, meets GNG. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Vogt

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

Fails

WP:NFOOTBALL. Only assertion of notability is for playing 97 mins in the W-League. Has now switched code and plays in the semi-pro AFLW. No evidence of significant coverage from independent sources; passing mention here and good coverage here but the source is a primary one. Spiderone 12:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify - she's now on an AFLW team, which is a different sport entirely, and the AFLW gets good national coverage (AFLW does better on TV than men's A-League.) The wrinkle here is she hasn't played in an AFLW match yet, so this may be a
WP:TOOSOON, and GNG is marginal as well. She is not notable for roundball-footy. Probably should be moved to Jacqui Vogt as well. SportingFlyer T·C 17:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete has not actually played in a game. It is time we stopped creating articles prematurely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 16:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing early due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Watts (British businessman)

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

No real claim to notability other than a lot of

WP:RSPSRC. ninety:one 12:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ninety:one 12:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rather ho-hum career/life. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NOTINHERITED. This was a very ordinary business person whose only claim to fame is being the brother-in-law of a famous writer. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per the above. This appears to be
WP:MILL. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as has been said, notability is not inherited. And without that, fails
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - As said notability is not inherited. He had a few famous relatives including his son and his sister-in-law (Agatha Christie), but, from what is in the article, I do not think there is enough in his own life that would give the sort of notability I would expect for a businessman with a Wikipedia article. I did wonder if the fact that as the article mentions he had some influence on Christie could swing things, but I do not think from what is said that he can be said to have had a significant impact on her career, and mention of him in this respect could be adequately covered in the appropriate articles of the two novels dedicated to him and the one he is said to have partly inspired The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Indeed he is mentioned in its article, although it does not link to his article. Also Abney Hall covers the Christie connection quite well. His wife currently redirects to Agatha Christie, but I do not think that would be appropriate for this article. Dunarc (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 110

)

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

I don't see how this article is significant enough for a place on Wikipedia. I understand that it may be of interest of importance to some, but there is little content. There is some data on this in the List of Bus Routes in London page, and this should be enough. Quoll662 (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP: meets the NCTEST The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

Could you elaborate on the "NCTEST"? SK2242 (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far all I can find is Richmond & Twickenham Times in terms of significant coverage. SK2242 (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Peat

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

Only assertion of notability is playing 124 mins in the W-League. I could not find one example of significant coverage of Peat, failing

WP:GNG. She is an active player but only in the lower divisions. Spiderone 12:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our far too broad football inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 16:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing early due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bamidele Adams

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

Not properly sourced and fails in GNG Akronowner (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Akronowner (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — UPE article on a non notable individual. Celestina007 (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this fails
WP:BASIC Spiderone 16:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable figure in the entertainment business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Evans

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject fails all criteria at

WP:MUSICBIO, having appeared on one concert and one album track. Notability is not inherited from notable siblings. There is nothing in this article that could not be accommodated in one paragraph of the Bee Gees article. WWGB (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nominator's position. The subject's notability seemingly rests entirely on her relationship to the Bee Gees, and that does not justify and independent article. Dunarc (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Sagar Ali

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

Sagar Ali has never played in either of the two Indian leagues listed at

WP:ATD, this could be sent to draft, however, we generally only do this if a footballer is very close to passing NFOOTBALL. Spiderone 11:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 16:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - It fails
WP:GNG here. HawkAussie (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per

WP:A7. So Why 08:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Midnite String Quartet

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

I could not find any evidence to suggest that this passes

WP:RS. Spiderone 10:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is certainly odd. The group has 215 albums listed (kudos to MS Excel for helping with the count) but I can find not one single reliable media mention or pro review of any of their releases. Some of their many albums are available in physical form at Amazon and such, and they don't ever get more than one or two customer reviews. Their other works are generally self-uploaded to services like Soundcloud where they get no notice. It appears that they never play live, or if they do then they are never promoted online. This poor band is doing a monstrous amount of work and getting zero notice, though I did find that their record of Jimmy Buffett covers generated a little chatter among his fans. I hope they're enjoying their esoteric hobby. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that they make most of their money from streaming on Spotify but their stats aren't even that high on there, really Spiderone 17:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doomsdayer. Btw, this is as far from a Wikipedia article as it gets: a listing of their many albums, an infobox and two external links. Even if notability is proven somehow, it can't stay in a state like this. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there just seems to be nothing out there. I can't even find basic info like number of band members, what city they're from, names of band members... Spiderone 18:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then they are not notable. My delete vote is still standing. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
A7 as this band article does not make a claim to notability. --Paul ❬talk❭ 19:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree. I've now tagged it. Spiderone 21:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

911 Nightmare

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources, there are a number of self-published/blog style reviews but nothing with editorial oversight, does not meet

WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched, but other than a rating from Radio Times (minus any actual review) this film seems to have been solidly ignored by media outlets. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 10:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say delete. This definitely falls under my contention that U.S. TV movies that have aired on cable TV over the last 20 years are generally not notable, because most of them do not receive the level of significant coverage demanded by
WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom.
talk) 19:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Not enough citations, the film released 4 years ago so I'm not expecting any more sources to appear. Also, there's a nasty "press release"-style premise section. Scrooge200 (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Minus the various socks, rough consensus is that this spy story should not be covered as a separate article, because of

WP:BLP concerns. Sandstein 17:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Christine Fang

)

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

Non-factual suspicions in

WP:BLP. Travelmite (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Yup, this bio article has gotta go. GoodDay (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
KEEP: meets BASIC The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per BLP1E, BLPCRIME and lacking a prior public figure stance. The article only exists because Axios published this report which makes the assertion that Fang is a Chinese spy, which triggered several other media reports to see if they could see anything corroborating (this makes it a BLP1E issue). While this assertion may be true, that is not the same as an authoritative law agency making a sentencing or the like (the Axios report event has said the FBI has no comment on their investigative report). There may be factors of the Axios report to include elsewhere but there's no reason to have a separate article on the assertions that have yet to be proven out by law enforcement or in course for the person they are accusing. --Masem (t) 14:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- But here is the thing though just because the FBI didn't make a comment on the Axios investigation doesn't mean they didn't accuse her of anything which it turns out they did. They got together reps and senators not run of the mill ones I'm talking big-wigs like Pelosi and apparently Swalwell too back in 2015 to tell them about the intel ops that Fang was running and after that Swalwell cut off ties wth her. If that's not a red flag that says Fang committed a crime then I don't know what is. [7] Afalfafa (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC) — Afalfafa (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

In your link Nancy Pelosi may have contributed to Chinese espionage in the United States, but didn't mention Fang. Private discussions between FBI and politicians are not RS, nor do they turn BLP suspicions into facts. Travelmite (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Axios - and the media overall - have zero legal authority to create a legal case against a person like this under our BLP /CRIME aspects. This is the type of stuff we're supposed to avoid with a 10 foot pole. --Masem (t) 03:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Axios investigation isn't creating a legal case against Fang, that was already done by the FBI. (surveillance, meet with Congress, etc) It's merely reporting on the accusations that have been levelled against her. I got no idea where you got this idea that Axios was trying to play the role of judge, jury and executioner. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC) — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

SOCK here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete per BLP1E; all the other outlets are citing Axios, whose author has stoked further high-profile racist Sinophobia (another example) without any sign of apology. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As said above violates BLP1E. BJackJS talk 17:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe this is currently a BLP1E situation where there shouldn't be a standalone article. The 1E being the Axios report itself. All pertinent information can be put into the Swalwell article without necessarily naming her due to
WP:SUSPECT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:SOCK

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep - i would say that the article should be keept. The event has been discussed in much depth by multitude of references (Wikipedia:Notability (events)/Depth of coverage) and the intense backlash against not just fang, but all the politicians she got associated with shows that the event has had lasting effect. (Wikipedia:Notability (events)/Lasting effects) the votes which say that the article should be delleted only because fang is notable for only one event (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Subjects notable only for one event) appear very much to be mistaken. There are three conditions which have to met and one of them is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." i think it is safe to say from the many references and lasting consequences of her event that this ha not been met. Festerhauer (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — Festerhauer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Just bring in RS from Eric Swallell Charles Juvon (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well reasoned argument of nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Strong keep: none of cited policies in the OP justifies deletion of the article.

1)
all five parts of the inclusion criteria for an event
.

2)
WP:BLP1E
does not apply because:
a) §1 is invalidated because the nature of Fang's activities eo ipso means that she is notable for more than one event.

b) §2 is invalidated because Fang is not a
public figure
: the background and activities sections of her page indicates that
(i) she had participated in an attention-seeking manner (most notably as a bundler for a sitting US Congressman) in publicity for multiple election campaigns

(ii) she held a position of power

(iii) she was engaged in high-profile activity as a lifelong endeavor, but is now attempting to be low-profile

(iv) the allegations she's been involved in has been noteworthy, relevant, and well documented (as has already been mentioned) and

(v) these allegations have been documented by a multitude of reliable published sources (as has also already been mentioned)

c) §3 is invalidated by the article's satisfaction of the aformentioned basic and inclusion criteria: the events have been significant (they've been significant enough for the FBI to put her under surveillance) AND the individual's role in relation to the events have been BOTH substantial AND well documented.

3)
WP:SUSPECT
does not apply because
a) Fang is a
not a non-public figure
)

b) does not categorically rule out the inclusion of criminal accusations against a person - it only advises that editor's not include such material

4)
WP:AVOIDVICTIM
does not apply because she's not a victim but the accused perpetrator

5)
WP:V
does not apply because all of the sources which have been used in the article are reliable.

6)
WP:NCRIME
which says that an article that documents phenomena that is deemed to be both notable and likely criminal/a crime should remain even if it has been subsequently established that no crime actually occurred as that finding would not diminish the notability of the phenomena. Specifically:
a) her acts were deemed illegal by U.S. law enforcement authorities (the FBI put Fang under surveillance and also notified Congress about her activities) -
WP:NCRIME
defines criminal acts to include those that have been suspected by law enforcement agencies as likely to have been committed.

b) U.S. law enforcement agencies deemed it likely that Fang's disappearance was caused by her criminal conduct (From Axios: "U.S. officials said China’s intelligence operation broke up in mid-2015 when Fang left the U.S. amid the FBI-led probe.") -
WP:NCRIME
makes it clear that this condition applies regardless of whether the perpetrator (in this case Fang) is identified or charged.

c) some of the victims of her criminal acts/crime are or have been important politicians, which the activities section of the article documents

d) Fang's criminal acts and the motivation for and execution of them have been sufficiently notable as evidenced by the article's satisfaction of the aformentioned basic and inclusion criteria

~~Forevertruthsayer (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

The "nature of Fang's activities" are being president of a student group (not a position of power), helping political campaigns, having sex and catching a plane to China. These are not what is meant by events. The rest are unproven suspicions. Fang is not a

WP:AVOIDVICTIM of defamation, being investigated and leaks of sexual activity. Travelmite (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

All of your queries have already been addressed by my analysis. All of the phenomena you cited are events (what else do you call catching a plane to China?), she is notable for her involvement in all them (and more) and that is why §1 of BLP1E is invalidated: because she's notable for more than one event. Just because I don't know the minutiae of her biography does not then mean that she is not a

~~WP:AVOIDVICTIM does not apply because she's not a victim but the accused perpetrator (as I had already said). Forevertruthsayer (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply

]

Catching a plane is an event? This logic invalidates

WP:BLP1E and the presumption of innocence.Travelmite (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

~~In her biographical context, yes (as I noted in section 2a of my argument).~~ ~~Forevertruthsayer (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

The only event here is the investigative report from Axios and how additional sources added to it. Yes, there may have been multiple events in the past, but none of those were reported on before; it is only this discovery of the purported spying by Axios that is the event to be considered by BLP1E. --Masem (t) 03:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect and irrelevant. Incorrect because she is notable for both the disclosure of her purported spying AND the events she performed (actual and purported) on which the disclosure supervened - this explains the qualitative difference of the responses to the Axios report in comparison with other types of spying as demonstrated, for example, by the significant Congressional reactions to Fang's relationship to Swalwell. The fact that the events she was involved in wasn't reported on previously doesn't diminish the significance of those events in much the same way that you wouldn't say just because you didn't find out a person had committed murder, then that would have diminished the significance of the murder. Your explanation is also irrelevant because even if you were right about what the event was, your argument would still fail to satisfy

WP:BLP1E because it fails to meet the stipulations in §3 as the event (disclosure of the purported spying according to you) was significant and Fang's role in relation to it was BOTH substantial and well documented. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC) — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply

]

The politics are relevant to

Christine Fang actually did. Three times [8] [9] [10] you inserted that Fang actually acted as an "intelligence operative". Travelmite (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

~~They are relevant to both Fang and Swalwell's page - it's not an either or proposition. Your arguments about~~

~~WP:CRIME has been met in section 6 of my argument. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply

]

I disagree with your BLP1E analysis: §1 - the 1E is indeed the Axios report as the following coverage by other RS relies on that original report. §2 - being a campaign fundraiser or

WP:SUSPECT §3 - the suspected role or activities are not actually confirmed or significant, only the event (the Axios report itself) is. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

1) Wrt to your analysis of section 2a of my argument - this is incorrect. As I said: "she is notable for both the disclosure of her purported spying AND the events she performed (actual and purported) on which the disclosure supervened - this explains the qualitative difference of the responses to the Axios report in comparison with other types of spying as demonstrated, for example, by the significant Congressional reactions to Fang's relationship to Swalwell. The fact that the events she was involved in wasn't reported on previously doesn't diminish the significance of those events in much the same way that you wouldn't say just because you didn't find out a person had committed murder, then that would have diminished the significance of the murder."

2) Wrt to your analysis of section 2bi of my argument - this is incorrect and incomplete. Incorrect because she's drawing attention to both herself AND the candidate - it's not an either or proposition. She had to make a name for herself because that was a key part of at least two of her suspected M.O. (campaign financing and networking) - there's no contradiction between being a (suspected) spy and having a high profile such as a bundler (see the "How Fang rose to prominence among Bay Area politicos" section of the Axios article) And incomplete because you didn't address subsections 2bii-v of that section of my argument.

3) Wrt to your analysis of section 2c of my argument - this is illogical. Even if you were right about what the event was (disclosure of the purported spying) your argument would still fail to satisfy WP:BLP1E because the event has been significant (as demonstrated by the article's satisfaction of the aformentioned basic and inclusion criteria) and Fang's role in relation to it has been BOTH substantial AND well documented - the entire Axios investigations is about (you guessed it) Fang's role in the suspected spying operation. Forevertruthsayer (~~talk) 19:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Let me clarify 3). The report itself is significant. However, the only thing that event/report confirms is that the intelligence community is suspicious of her and her activities. That she is a spy or her purported activities in furtherance of that role are not confirmed nor well documented beyond that one report. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am persuaded by above mentioned reasons for inclusion in this project. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG can't apply as the coverage only exists for 5 days (from Axios' Dec 10 article). GNG also looks for enduring coverage and we can't judge that yet. --Masem (t) 03:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not how GNG works.
    WP:N only says brief bursts of coverage may not indicate notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep - The above analysis spells out very clearly why this article is suitable for inclusion and deletion is unnecessary. It may need a clean-and-watch in some ways but
WP:NOTCLEANUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Aside - while the argument I cite was made by a socking sock who socked, the analysis itself is still, I believe, on point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep it's not true to say she is only known for one event and that she's entitled to privacy. She is known for doing something (suspected illegal spying) which got her involved in doing an unlimited number of events and if people are saying the one event she is known for was the spying then that hardly makes any sense because spying isn't an event. As for privacy, she is not "entitled" to that when her name is already out there. Literally it is plastered on the news all over the world in all languages, everybody knows her now and all the people especially the men that got caught up in her honey potting are getting raked over the coals. Afalfafa (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC) — Afalfafa (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

This remark is a whole slew of supposition, particularly the "Swalwell will lose his job" (seat in Congress), when his seat is D+20 and he has never fell below 2/3 of the vote in a non-primary contest. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

okay well there is a lot that is not accurate in your comment. I did not say Swalwell will lose his job i said he will probably lose his job and it is not really an unreasonble thing to say. just because his seat was rated as safe Democratic in the past does not mean it will be safe in the future. I made that prediction about his election future based on what i am seeing in terms of how Swalwell's colleagues in Congress and the common man is reacting and just going on that it looks like at a minimum this will be a godsend for his opponents because they are going to use this issue like a millstone around his neck. And i would appreciate it if you could please quit it already with the SPA accusation like just because i am new and i voted doesn't mean it counts as any less of a vote than people who have been here for a long time. yeah i know my vote makes it look like i'm an spa and it's not the greatest look but you gotta understand i wasn't the one who started this vote it was Travelmite who did. i would have prefered to have gotten more familiar with things on wikipedia before i voted, but as i have already voted and you've drawn attention to it, it is what it is i guess Afalfafa (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC) — Afalfafa (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Your contributions to Wikipedia are welcome. I'm sure you'd agree it would be a catastrophe if Wikipedia became a political battlefield. The policies we are discussing protect Wikipedia, maintain it's academic integrity and prevent it from being accused of defamation. Travelmite (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - BIO1E does not apply in this instance, since there was more than one politician involved. Easily passes
WP:GNG as shown in Forevertruthsayer's analysis. Especially since the scandal just continues to grow. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The espionage is suspected. This reasoning presumes these suspicions are factual. Let the politicians or FBI prove these suspicions, if they can. Travelmite (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on sources in the article and strongly agree with the user ~~Forevertruthsayer~~ analysis. I have nothing to add all covered. Gharouni^Talk 05:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I read the article, this individual didn't commit any crime, was tracked by the government (who reportedly are tracking 2,000 other Chinese visa holders), was never convicted or even accused of a crime. I'm sure that the government has thousands of cases of people they deem "suspicious" who do not have bios here and I think this violates
BLP and is more salacious than informative. The article's use of "relationship" implies a sexual or romantic connection without actually proving anything of that nature exists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Plus, when I did a copyright analysis, it appears that some of the article was taken from the Axios article and statements simply have quotation marks put around them to make it not a violation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted, we should consider removing her from other articles like List of Chinese spy cases in the United States#Christine Fang. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
~~Please see section 6 of my argument which should address your concerns about~~ ~~WP:CRIME. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete Axios report is interesting detail about China but not about Fang personally. Swallwell bit to date is just right-wing conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep per reasoning by Forevertruthsayer GMPX1234 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Keep at 23,637 kb, it appears that the Fang article size is just too large to properly integrate into the List of Chinese spy cases in the United States article and I am skeptical that we can do the integration without gutting the most important parts of the primary article. The allegations involved here are quite serious and has also been covered quite extensively in the mainstream press. I think it does the wider community a disservice to try to cover this up in any way. BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC) — BCEVERYWHERE (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Charges? What do you call charges? SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the FBI didn't charge Fang, the extensive article puts Fang on trial in absentia, because "the allegations involved here are quite serious" and to delete it would be to "cover this up" - demonstration of
WP:NOT. Travelmite (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per most of the other keepsSeven Pandas (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless all the suspicious issues are clarified and dismissed KPX8 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is the opposite of how Wikipedia works. Please read
WP:BLP SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I agree with Maxim and Liz that BLP1E applies here, but I also want to challenge a lot fo the keep rationales. The GNG says that we presume a subject should be included but does not require that we include them. A discussion, like this one, may find that inclusion is against other policies. That is exactly what BLP1E and BLPCRIME further explain. Yes, the subject may have received widespread coverage for a single event, but that does not mean the person is what's notable. Out of a concern for privacy and the presumption of innocence, we should and do have a high bar for situations like these. I don't think that's been met, and so we should delete. — Wug·a·po·des 20:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please see sections 2b, 3 and 6 of my argument. Privacy conerns do not apply because she is a public figure and the concern about her presumption of innocence (a high bar, to be sure) does not invalidate

WP:NCRIME which would clearly advise that the documentation of Fang's activities (i.e. the main article) should remain if they have been deemed to be both notable and likely criminal/a crime (they have) even if (emphasis are mine) it has been subsequently established that Fang did not actually commit the crimes she was accused of. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC) — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply

]

I strongly disagree that being a fundraiser or a

WP:CRIME discusses the notability of the alleged criminal. If your argument rests on NCRIME, then the article should be renamed to describe the case rather than the person. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

~~See the above where I responded to your comment.~~ ~~Forevertruthsayer (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete It appears she has an article for something suspected to have happened but not confirmed. For that, I don’t see notability. Trillfendi (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E. Also concur with Liz, and Morbidthoughts on renaming the article -- if the crime itself is worthy of its own article (which, at this point is still dubious) beyond trimmed down inclusion in
low profile and thus protected by BLPCRIME, and it appears she has not been convicted of any crime. So the very existence of this article is a BLP violation, and I see no way to remedy that at this period in time other than by deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: BLP1E as all of the coverage pertains to the single event of her being suspected of wrongdoing originating in the December 2020 Axios article.
Concerning the specific concerns with BLP1E#3, the suspected wrongdoing is not substantial and well-documented since it is unconfirmed suspicion based on a single source (the refs point to the original Axios source). No significant notability, with no coverage outside of recent suspicions; this is regardless of the existing major BLP violations, which are legitimate issues but may also be cleanup-related as some participants point out. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP1E, at BEST, User:Forevertruthsayer's unconvincing attempt at spinning it otherwise notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 14:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

UPDATE: Due to the repeated comments above that the current material in the article violates BLP1E, BLPCRIME and other BLP-grounded concerns, I have formally requested that the article be renamed from Christine Fang to Christine Fang spying accusations which should address those concerns as the subject matter of the proposed article is no longer about the person but about the person's activities (or the event as others have put it). Further votes for this AFD should take the rename request into consideration. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC) — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Something along those lines address BLP1E, not BLPCRIME. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Waskerton: & his many sockpuppets. How pathetic. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering tagging those with SPA a few days ago but the slightly diverse editing interest made me think "eh, AGF". Guess the gut is always right. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:GRAVEDANCING. As the saying goes two pathetics do not a civility make, or something like that. Be the bigger person. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I've no sympathy for sock-masters. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that most sock-masters are in general affirmation seeking master-baiters, its best not to take the master’s bait even post-mortem in order to avoid pleasuring them yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear example of
talk 02:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, I see nothing there which wouldn't be better covered on other pages, if the subject turns out to have a lasting significant of their own obviously we can and should revisit the subject but for today its a no from me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks quite notable. FBI gave Swalwell a "defensive briefing" in 2015, informing him that Fang was a suspected Chinese agent. Swalwell was one of many politicians who associated with Fang. She fled the United States in mid-2015 as she was being investigated. BTW, Elena Khusyaynova or Natalia Veselnitskaya are also notable only for one event. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fled?? Please don't make allegations or insinuations that are not contained in mainstream RS reports. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to be more precise, she abruptly left the United States in mid-2015 as she was being investigated. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Visas can be cancelled by authorities upon on any suspicion. If cancelled, that ends all future travel plans to anywhere. If asked, any consulate/embassy also would advise go home. I agree there are BLP issues with page Elena Khusyaynova -- go for it! Travelmite (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both Elena Khusyaynova and Natalia Veselnitskaya were charged or indicted which isn't the case here. From what I've read, there are hundreds (or more) foreign visa holders to the U.S. who are monitored by security agencies. Considered that this woman was not charged with a crime, I don't see why she should be profiled on Wikipedia...we don't have bios on the hundreds of other people under U.S. surveillance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There can be exemptions from BLP1E particularly depending on an individual's role in the event. This can be quite hard to evaluate now (and in today's media circus in general) due to recentism etc. afaics it's not quite met currently. The larger, and less debatable, issue here is BLPCRIME, which cannot be remedied with this article's existence at this moment in time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tabloidish notability for a fleeting event. ValarianB (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
Wikipedia is not a tabloid. This should have been speedy deleted at the start of this discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete And frankly a coordinated effort by probably a state-backed actor, this was not a recreational troll. Albertaont (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Illuminating Engineering Society. Compromise between delete and merge. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 17:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin F. Guth Memorial Award for Interior Lighting Design

AfDs for this article:

)

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

A generic award written by an editor with a Conflict of Interest with no notability, fails

WP:GNG. JayJay^{What did I do?} 09:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per
we are not for this. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into Illuminating Engineering Society, which presents the award. No need for stand-alone article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Illuminating Engineering Society Google does not have much on the subject and what is does have shows the proposed merge location is what has the notability. Jeepday (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bearian. I was hospitality employee of the year in Ann Arbor in 1980. Perhaps that should have an article. 174.212.222.125 (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing early due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Arfanis

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable film maker, fails

WP:FILMMAKER

. The awards — or I should say alleged awards, as they are only supported by a single close source — don't appear major enough to establish notability. The sources cited are poor, and I couldn't find anything better, either.

An earlier speedy tag was removed without explanation (by a mystery IP editor), so here we are at AfD, let's see what the community makes of this one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've only just noticed that this AfD got '2nd nomination' added in the title; turns out the speedy was requested on G4 basis as a recreation of an article already deleted earlier. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article does not appear to have added anything since April 2020, when the subject was found to be non-notable. See
reference-bombed with low-quality and unreliable sources, including Facebook, Spotify, and Discogs. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robert McClenon. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Cannot find any real source on him in the Greek media (or elsewhere). Referneces like this are a joke. Besides that, the awards listed are not real awards even if verified: official selections and special mentions somewhere in LA, or in pretty unknown, or minor film festivals and competitions. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing early due to early consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Crosses

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

This article is a purely revisioned/falsified/fictional version of

Khachkars

article. There is none/has never been any evidence of existence of Albanian Crosses similar to Khachkars. The article also disputes/contradicts several other article, e.g.

Armenian cemetery in Julfa,
Syunik (historic province)
,
House of Hasan-Jalalyan
,
Principality of Khachen,
Caucasian Albania,
Gandzasar Monastery
,
Dadivank Monastery

Addictedtohistory (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Armenian inscribed khachkar images are presented as Albanian in article. Armenian provinces and principalities are presented as Albanian. The Armenian royal family presented as Albanian. What is most ridiculous, is that Caucasian Albanian ceased to exist in 8th century, yet history after 10th century is attributed to Caucasian Albania. The entire article throughout is pure fictional revision of Khachkar article --Addictedtohistory (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly redundant to Khachkar, but some of it might be of use there. - Sumanuil (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where to start? Fiction, falsification, propaganda, fake images. --Hayordi (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete the article is fully fictional, uses images of Armenian Khachkars from Armenian monasteries. Give imaginary explanations on cross variants that are unrelated to christianity whatsoever, none of the sources are linked, verifiable or unbiased. This is another example of "Albanification" attemps on Wikipedia - Kevo327 (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. Eurofan88 (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is clearly built upon anti-Armenian historical negationism regarding Khachkars in specific and Armenians and the history of Armenians in general. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hell, it was even worse before I (and other users) removed some information. It tied the ancient Caucasian Albania state and its people with the modern-day Republic of Azerbaijan (that would be like, say, if Turkey claimed to be a continuation of ancient Greece, Lydia, and whatnot..), talk about pseudo-history. Not to mention this article pushes a bizarre Caucasian Albania narrative as far into the late Middle Ages, completely ignoring that Caucasian Albania was gone by the 8th-century. Irredentist nonsense is/was also sponsored in the article, with terms such as 'Western Azerbaijan' (referring to Armenia) and 'Southern Azerbaijan' (referring to northern Iran) being used. This doesn't surprise me at all, considering the user who added this (Altun Ahmedov) has in his short time on Wikipedia more or less pov-pushed/disrupted articles. [11] [12] [13]. To those who don't know much about this topic of revisionism regarding Caucasian Albania, I would advise them to read [14]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it mostly relies on unreliable sources. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 15:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationale by Addictedtohistory. The new article is just a POV and historical revisionist version of
talk) 07:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
you must out of pity. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for comment. But Khachkar is an Armenian cross stone. Redirection from Albanian crosses may be misleading for a common reader, in a sence that Armenia and Albania is the same --Addictedtohistory (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale by Addictedtohistory. --RaffiKojian (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a
WP:POVFORK of the Khachkars article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superstar (2009 film)

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

Fails

WP:RS — Amkgp 💬 15:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable film, failing
WP:NFILM. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title of this movie and one of the characters' names reminded me of Hannah Montana. Cyrus = Superstar. :) But anyways, this is not a notable film, the bland title makes it difficult to search, there may be coverage in Arabic but I can't read Arabic. Presented sources do not establish notability. And the "film Irani" part is just omg. It should be the following: "Superstar is an Irani film." Little nitpick, I know, but an encyclopedia shouldn't contain mistakes like this one. Update: corrected that. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is definitely a notable film with reviews by The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Reader, La Weekly as linked at Rotten Tomatoes here as well as a review in Variety. Clearly passes
WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306, reviews in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Reader, and L.A. Weekly are clearly enough to demonstrate notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But none of them provided the links to the article to improve. — Amkgp 💬 11:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here and here. The Chicago Reader one is dubious as to whether or not its SIGCOV, but it doesn't matter, it passes

WP:GNG anyway. Devonian Wombat (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 07:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep I've added the LA Times, Chicago Reader, and LA Weekly reviews to the article and cleaned it up a smidgen but from reading them, it does seem like it only got reviewed by virtue of having a famous Writer/Director. The current sources in Farsi (not Arabic, @GhostDestroyer100:) appear to be from a user generated source like an IMDB-analogue, which isn't great - ideally there'd be some coverage from an Iranian newspaper or something. I'd also note from fa.wiki that this film has won a handful of awards. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per added sources by editor Paul Carpenter. BabbaQ (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for the reasons of those who want this article kept, but could still use improving by expanding it with more information. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Coin & Bullion

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

essentially an advertisement. The references are either promotional links, or links to events where the subject was of only peripheral concern--or awards to an individual, not the orgnaization DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At first I was hesitant on this article because it seemed like an ordinary coin retailer but I believe there are enough sources to show its a notable rare coin dealer in the Beaumont, Texas area and beyond.--Excel23 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete - If I were reviewing this article as a draft at AFC, I would decline it as failing to address
blown up and started over. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This article does not demonstrate notability, thus fails verifiability principles. It is also too promotional and violates Wikipedia's purposes by existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough sources to show notability. I propose to add an advert tag instead of outright deletion so it can be cleaned up.--Blurz (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:DEL4. A small article of little worth, except to the company. scope_creep^Talk 14:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

keep but improve removed some slightly promotional-sounding words, removed unsupported statement and added one new reference. Cleaned up punctuation. Meets guidelines, but could use continued improvement.Star7924 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see significant news coverage, although nothing from major media, I think there is enough industry press (peer reviewed) to keep this one. A few sources are profiles such as Bloomberg, so this may need a little cleanup. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: enough coverage to justify inclusion. There are a few primary sources as also pointed out by Expertwikiguy and should be addressed by clean up, rather than deletion. I have added two more references. We could also use huffpost piece as a reference that reports Universal Coin & Bullion to be one of the National Rifle Association’s top backers and a member of the NRA Business Alliance.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria for notability has nothing to do with the volume of coverage but on the quality of the content of the references. The HuffPost piece is commenting on what they themselves describe as an "advertorial" so no, it cannot be used to establish notability as it is 1) a mere mention-in-passing and fails
  HighKing⁺⁺ 18:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete Not a single reference meets NCORP requirements. Topic fails notability.
HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 07:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. A donation of $6,000 is significant coverage? Puhlease. Other sources just as dubious. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

How about: BLOCK : fails the SOCK test :) Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Advetising. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (
could be forgiven, but in 2020 everybody knows we have rules. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 09:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradys, California

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

Topos show a single building at the site, which is currently occupied by a gas station named Bradys Market. I can find no evidence that

WP:GNG is met here. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delet having a gas station fairly remote from anything else does not default make the gas station notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a redirect to a deleted or non-existent page (

(non-admin closure) SK2242 (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

NEWJ

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

The subject of this article is a private media organisation which does not meet notability guidelines and has been repeatedly created and deleted three times. Most of the sources cited are either press releases or primary to the subject of the article. Northern Escapee (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, fails WP:ORGIN Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article by a new account, originally created under a title other than NEWJ, which was already
notability. Although a(nother) speedy-deletion is an option, it may be best for this AfD to run its course as a control for future re-creations. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: this article appears to have been moved to
WP:G8 (redirect to non-existent page). (Update: page speedily deleted) --Dps04 (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phuthi Nakene

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

Prod removed by creator without comment. Original concern was "Not enough in-depth coverage to pass

WP:NACTOR." Gbawden (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 07:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 07:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 07:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough in-depth coverage to pass
WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7, G3, G5). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ S UNIVERSE Q

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

This article has three different subjects and non of its subjects has notability. All sources cited do not show credibility. Northern Escapee (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete pretty blatant hoax, and also probably a sock of
π, ν) 06:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete should have been A1 or A11, IMHO... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. czar 06:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Gosford, California

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

Topos show a siding with two buildings there. Newspapers.com results are for an oil well, a region within an oil field, and the Gosford Milling Corporation. No evidence that this was a legally recognized community, so

WP:GEOLAND is not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf, California

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

Topos show a railroad spur going into an oil refinery. Newspapers.com results are for the Gulf Oil Company.

WP:GNG do not seem to be met. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Bloody obvious from the topos that this is just a NN point on the railroad, if you take a look. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. czar 06:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hilltop, Grayson County, Kentucky

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

Not in Rennick's Grayson County directory. Topos show two residences and some sheds here, and all of the newspapers.com results for "Hilltop" in Grayson County, KY newspapers are for a Hilltop Christian Church. Gbooks brings up a lot of search engine noise. I'm seeing no indication that this was ever legally recognized, so

WP:GNG does not seem to be, either. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certificate of Annuity

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

This article has been tagged for ten years for notability and factual accuracy. It is also unsourced. The external link does not appear to show any instance of the term being used, and I can’t find any other instances of its use either. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sycamore Community School District. Nothing sourced to merge. czar 06:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sycamore Junior High School

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

The article does not meet

WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. No sources in the article. BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV. A nice, perfectly normal school, but not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 04:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge to
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and then convert it to a disambiguation page. There's another Sycamore Junior High School in the Anaheim Union High School District. - Eureka Lott 05:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete In the US we do not keep articles on anything below the high school level unless there are very, very, very strong claims to notability, which is not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per EurekaLott and for consistency. Oh, and the kids need to read up on their district. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to

before nominating an article for deletion.) czar 09:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Christel House South Africa

)

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

The article does not meet

Christel House International // Timothy :: talk 04:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was redirect. Geschichte (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Nel

)

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

No evidence of subject receiving significant coverage in reliable sources; fails

WP:NSPORTS

, which says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." It also says "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" as well as "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases."

This has zero significant sources; it cites only a database source of the single game played, which is specifically excluded by

WP:SPORTCRIT from being able to establish notability. Hence there is not basis for the bulk-creation of this article. A possible redirect target is List of Border representative cricketers. Reywas92^Talk 04:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep meets
WP:NCRIC. Right at the top of WP:NSPORT (before WP:SPORTCRIT) it states (in bold) - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". At worst, redirect to the list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Immediately after that it says "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Well guess what? For this person, they don't. So he's not notable. It also says "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline" so any apparent contradictions show the idiocy of this page, and we should default to the basic expection of significant coverage beyond a database entry, not your mass-production of perma-substubs. Reywas92^Talk 08:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're wrong here, as the article meets the notability requirements. And please don't make

attacks against me. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the SNG page. But you're wrong, because even with "or the sport specific criteria set forth below", it doesn't meet the SNG because the SNG explicity excludes the use of only databases for notability. Reywas92^Talk 17:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NCRIC is disputed at the moment because it is way too broad and includes too many people who don't meet
Fram (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthur Norton. In short, this flood of nonnotable people is unsustainable and there are better ways to cover this information. Reyk _YO! 11:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Border representative cricketers; fails all meaningful notability criteria (GNG, NBIO, etc.) – by consensus, NCRIC is too permissive and should not be used as a reliable indicator of notability; even more so meeting it so minimally. Current sourcing fails SPORTBASIC and seems highly unlikely any significant coverage exists to establish notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers. In the circumstances I think this is probably the most effective solution. Only one match of any kind in the record, which tends to suggest that it's going to be difficult to find anything else on him. If it is, we cancel the redirect. What this should not be is a delete - the list is perfectly serviceable and deleting only loses the base of an article that we might decide we can use in the future. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers. The article simply tells us that Nel played one game of South African cricket in either 1955 or 1956 (not even sure about the year). This same information can be conveyed (and more effectively in the redirect list. This is one of ~ 3,000 similar cricket sub-stubs mass-produced this year alone by Lugnuts. See User:Lugnuts/Cricket/2020. While such sub-stubs might be acceptable when an SNG is tailored to accurately predict GNG compliance, this SNG fails to do so and would leave us with tens of thousands of sub-stubs than can never be improved to become meaningful encyclopedia articles. Cbl62 (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Does not meet GNG, so is not an appropriate subject for a standalone article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Geschichte (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Nelson (cricketer)

)

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

No evidence of subject receiving significant coverage in reliable sources; fails

WP:NSPORTS

, which says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." It also says "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" as well as "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases."

This has zero significant sources; it cites only a database source of the single game played, which is specifically excluded by

WP:SPORTCRIT from being able to establish notability. Hence there is not basis for the bulk-creation of this article. A possible redirect target is List of Border representative cricketers. Reywas92^Talk 04:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep meets
WP:NCRIC. Right at the top of WP:NSPORT (before WP:SPORTCRIT) it states (in bold) - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". At worst, redirect to the list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. NCRIC is disputed at the moment because it is way too broad and includes too many people who don't meet
Fram (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or redirect to List of Border representative cricketers; fails all meaningful notability criteria (GNG, NBIO, etc.) – by consensus, NCRIC is too permissive and should not be used as a reliable indicator of notability; even more so meeting it so minimally. Current sourcing fails SPORTBASIC and seems highly unlikely any significant coverage exists to establish notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthur Norton. Reyk _YO! 17:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers. In the circumstances this seems the most appropriate course. Only two matches of any kind that we know about, all within the course of a few days in 1993 - the other was a non-listed one-day match held in the middle of the FC fixture. Again, I don't think this is delete territory - we lose the based of the article should anything else be found which seems like a bad thing. His father is more notable and I suppose there's a case which could be made to redirect to his article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers. The article simply tells us that Nelson played one game of South African cricket in either 1993 or 1994 (not even sure about the year). This same information can be conveyed (and more effectively) in the redirect list. This is one of ~ 3,000 similar cricket sub-stubs mass-produced this year alone by Lugnuts. See User:Lugnuts/Cricket/2020. While such sub-stubs might be acceptable when an SNG is tailored to accurately predict GNG compliance, this SNG fails to do so and would leave us with tens of thousands of sub-stubs than can never be improved to become meaningful encyclopedia articles. Cbl62 (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Geschichte (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collan Nicholas

)

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

No evidence of subject receiving significant coverage in reliable sources; fails

WP:NSPORTS

, which says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." It also says "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" as well as "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases."

This has zero significant sources; it cites only a database source of the single game played, which is specifically excluded by

WP:SPORTCRIT from being able to establish notability. Hence there is not basis for the bulk-creation of this article. A possible redirect target is List of Border representative cricketers. Reywas92^Talk 04:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep meets
WP:NCRIC. Right at the top of WP:NSPORT (before WP:SPORTCRIT) it states (in bold) - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". At worst, redirect to the list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Immediately after that it says "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Well guess what? For this person, they don't. So he's not notable. It also says "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline" so any apparent contradictions show the idiocy of this page, and we should default to the basic expection of significant coverage beyond a database entry, not your mass-production of perma-substubs. Reywas92^Talk 08:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're wrong here, as the article meets the notability requirements. And please don't make

attacks against me. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the SNG page. But you're wrong, because even with "or the sport specific criteria set forth below", it doesn't meet the SNG because the SNG explicity excludes the use of only databases for notability. Reywas92^Talk 17:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NCRIC is disputed at the moment because it is way too broad and includes too many people who don't meet
Fram (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthur Norton. In short, this flood of nonnotable people is unsustainable and there are better ways to cover this information. Reyk _YO! 11:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Border representative cricketers; fails all meaningful notability criteria (GNG, NBIO, etc.) – by consensus, NCRIC is too permissive and should not be used as a reliable indicator of notability; even more so meeting it so minimally. Current sourcing fails SPORTBASIC and seems highly unlikely any significant coverage exists to establish notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers. This is probably best in the circumstances - we only have one match of any kind recorded for him and a redirect preserves the base of the article should we find more in the future. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers. The article simply tells us that Nicholas played one game of South African cricket in either 1954 or 1955 (not even sure about the year). This same information can be conveyed (and more effectively) in the redirect list. This is one of ~ 3,000 similar cricket sub-stubs mass-produced this year alone by Lugnuts. See User:Lugnuts/Cricket/2020. While such sub-stubs might be acceptable when an SNG is tailored to accurately predict GNG compliance, this SNG fails to do so and would leave us with tens of thousands of sub-stubs than can never be improved to become meaningful encyclopedia articles. Cbl62 (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Border representative cricketers. Missvain (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Norton

)

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

No evidence of subject receiving significant coverage in reliable sources; fails

WP:NSPORTS

, which says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." It also says "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" as well as "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases."

This has zero significant sources; it cites only a wide-sweeping database source of the single game played, which is specifically excluded by

WP:SPORTCRIT from being able to establish notability. Hence there is not basis for the bulk-creation of this article. A possible redirect target is List of Border representative cricketers. Reywas92^Talk 04:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep meets
WP:NCRIC. Right at the top of WP:NSPORT (before WP:SPORTCRIT) it states (in bold) - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". At worst, redirect to the list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Immediately after that it says "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Well guess what? For this person, they don't. So he's not notable. It also says "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline" so any apparent contradictions show the idiocy of this page, and we should default to the basic expection of significant coverage beyond a database entry, not your mass-production of perma-substubs. Reywas92^Talk 08:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're wrong here, as the article meets the notability requirements. And please don't make

attacks against me. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the SNG page. But you're wrong, because even with "or the sport specific criteria set forth below", it doesn't meet the SNG because the SNG explicity excludes the use of only databases for notability. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NCRIC is disputed at the moment because it is way too broad and includes too many people who don't meet
Fram (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I respect Lugnuts greatly so I don't wish to write this as harshly as I am. Are people just randomly dipping into the cricket project now and again to voice their displeasure as and when they find something that upsets them? They appear to be finding these articles completely at random with no justification as to precisely what they pick and choose. Just like articles I've written, every single article Lugnuts has written follows the same template. Stop picking out entire articles as you come across them, look at our edit histories, and decide on a more systematic way of deciding what you disagree with. Bobo . 10:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:V, and trying to use them for that purpose is an abuse of process. I would support overhauling that list to include statistical information. That better reflects the nature of the sources anyway, which amount to a few cells in a spreadsheet. Reyk _YO! 10:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm undecided between redirect or keep. I don't know enough about the availability of non-internet sources about South African cricketers to feel certain whether or not additional sources are likely to exist. What this is not is a delete - although I understand the rationale about bringing this to AfD, I also see an argument for keeping in the current circumstances. I tend to err more on the side of redirect in cases such as these I suppose, but that might be too easy a position to take. I note that CricInfo and CricketArchive have different dates of death for him btw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Border representative cricketers; fails all meaningful notability criteria (GNG, NBIO, etc.) – by consensus, NCRIC is too permissive and should not be used as a reliable indicator of notability; even more so meeting it so minimally. Current sourcing fails SPORTBASIC and seems highly unlikely any significant coverage exists to establish notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or r~~Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers. The article simply tells us that Norton played one game of South African cricket in either 1909 or 1910 (not even sure about the year). This is one of ~ 3,000 similar cricket sub-stubs mass-produced this year alone by Lugnuts. See User:Lugnuts/Cricket/2020. While such sub-stubs might be acceptable when an SNG is tailored to accurately predict GNG compliance, this SNG fails to do so and would leave us with tens of thousands of sub-stubs than can never be improved to become meaningful encyclopedia articles. Cbl62 (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normandy Village, Berkeley, California

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

The article does not meet

WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 04:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable apartment building.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of evidence available to suggest that this warrants an encyclopaedia entry Spiderone 21:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ali Apartments

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

The article does not meet

WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 04:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was prepared to delete a non-notable apartment building, but a proposed non-notable apartment building? Definitely! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Could be a subsection in the article on the courthouse now at the site, but it doesn't have an article. Best to delete it for now. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - clearly fails NBUILD and GNG Spiderone 19:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have doubts this would have been notable even if it had been built, being unbuilt it is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vyapar App

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

Fails GNG; run-of-the-mill bookkeeping app. I can't find a specific guideline for notability regarding apps, but applying WP:PRODUCT, I reckon we're good to go. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

~~KEEP: meets SIGCOV~~ ~~The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
Delete: per mon. any coverage seems regular PR ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to

(non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Twillingate Museum

)

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

Not a notable museum or relevant on a provincial or national scale.--UserNL2020 (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete with a somewhat heavy heart, because it looks terribly quaint... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: fails SIGCOV but may pass the NCTEST. Delete for now but can be kept if the museum meets the NCTEST and more independent sources can be found. The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
Merge into Twillingate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge. Rwood128 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the best option. Museums are tourist attractions and so should not be deleted out of hand. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against redirection but it's currently not mentioned in the district article. czar 04:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Burke Academy

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

Not a notable school or relevant in any way. No sources.--UserNL2020 (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 05:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Wikipedia needs to quickly delete every article that is only sourced to the subject's own website unless people can find additional reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the district just for consistency, or at least a redirect. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this school fails
WP:GNG, the only available reference is its own website, and no better sources can be found. There are 256 schools in the Newfoundland and Labrador School District, I don't see why this one deserves a mention on that page over all the others. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to the district: Article does not meet
WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 00:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taler (cryptocurrency)

)

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

Non-notable, fails

WP:GNG

. No valid RS, mostly non-english sources. Possibly promotional. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. RS's are extremely thin. Definitely not a notable coin even in the cryptocurrency community,
talk) 06:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

DELETE: fails SIGCOV and NONENG ~~The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
- Ridculously false. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep. False nomination. satisfies
WP:SIGCOV. English-language sources exist, and some are cited. Google search easily shows sufficient number of reliable sources. Currently cited are naviny.by major belarus news portal, Capital Television state TV, etc. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment — Capital Television is a state-run organization and naviny.by appears to have some history of forced government intervention/influence. They shouldn’t be considered reliably independent sources, at least in this context, because the establishment of Thaler and other blockchain tech seems unusually dependent on the Belarusian government’s regulatory stance based on the references. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 18:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- State-run news media considered unreliable in political/news subjects. There is no reason to consider them unreliable in purely technical issues. There is no evidence that Thaler or their developers somehow related to government. In fact, the article suggessts the opposite: Taler was selected as currency by the opposition/trolling micronation Veyshnoria. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it is part of a government backed scam we should keep the article.Rathfelder (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlikely, because a noticed that the Taler website uses symbols used by belarusian opposition. I dont think that the govt is that smartass. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:TNT. Even if it's notable, the propaganda-filled citations make this article untenable. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
- Propaganda? YOu must be kidding. Show me a piece of propaganda in the article. This is a technical article, has no relation to politics or government. The developer tried to grab an opportunity coming from an undercooked govt idea of digitalization. (By the way, eventually the state did noting helpful.) Lembit Staan (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - RT is a site that has propaganda issues.
    talk) 19:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)^[1][reply
    ]

References

^ Erlanger, Steven (8 March 2017). "Russia's RT Network: Is It More BBC or K.G.B.? (Published 2017)". The New York Times.

- - - So what? This is a technical, not political article. Propaganda issues irrelevant. Correctness of technical facts is independent of political views of the publisher. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Really? Lembit Staan, reliably verifiable sources establish notability. Propaganda by its nature is designed to forcefully raise the notability of something. Those issues are very relevant to how reliable a source is. Nowhere is there a rule that says technical facts are immune to political influence. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 02:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It will be a surprize for you but technical facts are immune to political influence. Interpretations of facts are not. But in Wikipedia interpretations, i.e., opinions, require indicators authors of these opinions. Please show which statements in article are opinions. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, when I say technical “facts” here, I’m referring to their interpretations. But the point is that the validity of facts as interpreted by a secondary source can only come after establishing that the source is reliable. Sources with a history of propaganda or intrusive state interference cannot be reliable in determining a subject’s notability or verifying facts. Furthermore, Wikipedia’s principal is verifiability,
        WP:NOTTRUTH. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 18:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Delete as argued by
talk) 22:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per everything above. Gerald WL 17:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller, California

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

Another series of former railroad spots, generally sidings, in Imperial Valley, these being found among the various fields instead of out in the open desert. A few of these had post offices at some point, but there's no sign of any significant settlement other than a farmhouse here or a warehouse there. I'm not seeing any notability among these. Mangoe (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all none of these places meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL: I have never been a fan of mass nominations because "sometimes" there can be a baby in the bathwater. In these many cases, here and at other AFD's, there is not anything more that a
Wikipedia's Five pillars. Otr500 (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all due to
WP:GNG failure Spiderone 23:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Fuller, California

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Jubb

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

Not sure that this meets

WP:FRINGEBLP. The New York Times article is a solid source that is about Mr Jubb, but the Washington Post is just a brief passing reference, NYM is also only a brief section in an article about someone else. The Village Voice article is about Raw Foodism generally, and mentions Jubb in passing. There's certainly some coverage here and the deletion case is borderline. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in reliable independent sources to meet
WP:NBIO. —Paleo Neonate – 04:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not enough multiple sources that are indepth about him to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google News search brings up no additional reliable secondary sources. POLITANVM ^talk 00:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas R. Harper

)

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

This deletion proposal largely follows in the footsteps of

original research. (By the way, he is not, as the lead claims, a "lexicographer" any more than an uncredentialled blogger is a "memoirist".) Wolfdog (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IMSE source strikes me as significant coverage, but for the moment I lean toward merge with Online Etymology Dictionary, which seems about the only thing he's known for. Nardog (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are not enough reliable 3rd-party secondary sources with significant coverage about Harper to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have a keen interest in etymology and I consider the Online Etymology Dictionary to be an excellent resource for English etymology. The IMSE source is certainly "significant coverage". Whoever says that the author is "not particularly reliable" should explain the reasons for this judgement, which I believe to be totally wrong. Harper also published the history books (though local history) listed in the article, Etymonline is not his only contribution to culture. As far as I know, a lexicographer is anyone who has compiled a dictionary, whether printed or online, so he can be credited as a lexicographer. --Gab.pr (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If people are interested in the content and not the creator, and that would indicate the creator is not notable. Also it would indicate we have an article on the creation and not the creator. Just because one creates something that is notable does not always mean that one themself is notable. Wikipedia biographical aricles need to follow indepth secondary reliable source independent coverage of an individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. To be labeled as a lexicographer, you need to at the very least be published (not self-published); I've already headed off this kind of thinking with my above blogger analogy. 2. The "reasons" why I call Harper "not particularly reliable", as I've already indicated, stem from a prior discussion: here it is again. 3. You having a keen interest in etymology isn't relevant here and doesn't lend any credibility to Harper. Wolfdog (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Harper is simply not a notable topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Smith School

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

This article is about a non-profit primary and secondary school that lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources about it. Since all the references in the article are primary and all I was able to find in a

WP:TNT likely also applies. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
Phil Bridger added a reference for "The Alice Smith School started in 1946 as a stop-gap home school in Kuala Lumpur" — does the reference confirm this text or just the establishment year only? The text and the reference should be added to the Education section of the Kuala Lumpur article. Noting this article was created by someone who works at the school — see contribution history with edits to the page over the years since its creation in 2006, and this discussion. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The article needs a bit of a re-write and there are some COI concerns, but the topic appears notable as one of the oldest British international schools with plenty of coverage in English-language Malaysian sources and even some books: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The trivialness of them aside, per the guidelines your "sources" only count as a single source because they aren't independent of each other. Also, I said in my nomination that there name were some name drops in books, but nothing in-depth. So do you have an example of in-depth coverage of the school in a book or are you asserting that name drops or otherwise extremely brief mentions are enough? I assume its the latter and you found nothing different in books then what I did given the briefness of coverage in the single reference you have provided already. Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources have you found, and why don't you think they pass
WP:GNG? SportingFlyer T·C 16:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't get your question about which "sources" I've found. Since I was referring to the ones you provided. As far as why they don't pass

WP:GNG and also stating that all your "sources" only count as one, because they are not independent of each other. So, what book did you find that has "Significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm asking you specifically which books you looked at which you would consider "name-drops." SportingFlyer T·C 12:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is which book you looked at that contains "Significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail, or are you saying that you didn't look at any that do? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG not enough reliable resources to define any notability. Most of the citations are primary sources.Duncan079 (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Article does not meet
WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. Sources in article are not IS RS with SIGCOV. BEFORE revealed nothing that meets SIGCOV. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 23:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no requirement in any policy or guideline that an article subject has to be abnormal to be an encyclopedic topic. This is not the Guinness Book of Records.
Phil Bridger (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep in support of the very lucid arguments made above by SportingFlyer.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG - Kolma8 (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Searches did not reveal enough in-depth sourcing to pass
WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Hamilton Golland

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

Certainly accomplished, but not nearly enough in-depth coverage to pass

WP:NSCHOLAR, with an anemic citation count with a high of "2". Oh yeah, also appears to be an autobiography. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the basis of the book reviews and
WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep enough coverage as an author. Duncan079 (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets
reviews of Golland's books (they could have own wikiarticles). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes
WP:TNT type concerns earlier, but solid cleanup work by Coolabahapple has removed these concerns. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Heber, California. Missvain (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradtmoore, California

)

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

Normally, I would not be nominating a place with a post office for deletion. However, I believe there is good reason to this time: The Bradtmoore post office seems to have been a short-lived name for the

WP:OR violation for me to put my theory in the Heber article without a really solid source. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't think it's
WP:OR to redirect in case anyone ever looks for it to Heber and then include the blurb clipped about Bradtmoore. The name does appear in a couple place name books I can't access, so I don't think we're doing any first hand research here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge or Redirect to Heber, California. As stated, Bradtmoore had [a post office]. Interesting about the two names and the confusion. JStor had no hits. Not found in GNIS. A few trivial hits are found in newspapers.com. GBooks had some hits for the post office. Cxbrx (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is a question here of what Durham says. If he says it was a separate place, I would say to just delete it. If he indicates that it was a rename, or that Bradtmoore was actually in Heber, then I would go for redirect and rewrite the passage. @Reywas92: for a consult. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The cite is for the entry for Heber: "Postal authorities established Bradtmoore post office in 1903 and moved it 0.5 miles south in 1904 when they changed the name to Heber; the name 'Bradtmoore' was coined from letters in the name Bradley T. Moore, founder of the community." Seems like a redirect is the correct move and there never should have been a separate article here in the first place. It continues to say "A townsite called Paringa, laid out east of present Heber in 1901 and 1902, was abandoned in 1903" so
  Paringa, California should be redirected too. Reywas92^Talk 03:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - redirect in light of the above. Mangoe (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kutcher

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

Per

WP:NOTINHERITED) and that he visited the White House once to lobby for an advocacy group which is itself not notable. The "Career" section makes clear this page is intended to be promotional, not informational. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing notability for the subject, only the brother. Jeepday (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references don't establish notability, and the article overall seems promotional.PopePompus (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refo Çapari

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

Fails

WP:BASIC Serv181920 (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County prefect is not an "inherently" notable role under
WP:WAX, the fact that there's an article on the Turkish Wikipedia also doesn't mean that one automatically has to exist in English too, particularly since it's not at all certain that the Turkish article (which is literally word for word the same article with the exact same single source) would pass the Turkish Wikipedia's inclusion criteria either. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep >> I just found and added several entries from Capari's biography written by Hoxha. There is merit to this article. It just needs help. --Nerdtimer (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:SIGCOV. A county official is rarely notable. There's one source, in two citations, in a book. I think that's not enough for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep A 384-age book on the subject of the article, which is now referenced, makes the case for me. Keep in support of Nerdtimer's research.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Ibrahim Hoxha's book, as well as what looks like SIGCOV in Robert Elsie's 2001 work, cause this person to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how been mentioned one or two times in Robert Elsie's 2001 work makes him Notable?Serv181920 (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I only was able to view the work through snippet view, it's hard to be sure, but I am reasonably sure it devotes about a paragraph and a half to Capari. That is very borderline on whether or not it constitutes SIGCOV, but I'm willing to be lenient on that front because this is a historical figure who operated in a language other than English. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studies in Communication and Media

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet

WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "Improved the page by adding 2 extra sources that mention this journal (International Communication Association and International Association for Media and Communication Research". "Sources" added are promotional blurbs (probably provided by the journal itself, given that both associations use the same text). PROD reason stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, a merge to
b} 00:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Based on a quick Scholar search, articles published in this journal are cited a good bit in other academic journals in this field, which appears to denote some notability. Having said that, I could also live with a merge into International Communication Association as a possible secondary option.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find enough sourcing to support passing
WP:NJournals. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE: fails JOURNALCRIT The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Jancke

AfDs for this article:

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

same as last time, she still doesn't meet inclusion criteria. There's no actual in depth coverage of her, just passing mentions and interviews (and black hat SEO trying to pass off promotional gibberish as journalism.) Praxidicae (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to say delete. Not sure how this person is supposed to meet
WP:ENT if none of her filmography even has its own page. However, I would love to hear from a German-speaking editor before the process is over, both to verify the content and reliability of the sources and to say if this person might actually be relevant. To be continued, Harry — Say hello! 18:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Speedy~~ delete ~~per~~
~~G4. No substantial difference from the previous version as deleted following the first AFD.~~ SITH (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Not G4. Firstly, as an admin, I can tell you that the version on Deletionpedia is not the most up-to-date version of the original deleted article—that has an additional paragraph. Secondly, the new version has much less verbiage overall, much less promotional wording, and new "Philanthropy" and "Filmography" sections. I don't see how the two can be called substantially identical. BethNaught (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Thanks, SITH (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep I'm leaning to keep...for their work as an actor no, but the work as a model possibly - I don't speak German, but there appear to be substantial articles written about this model, in the German press. ~~Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete - Changed my vote from above - there are sources not listed in the article, but it seems they are not great quality. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm from Germany but I have a Conflict of Interest, because I'm a big Fan of here. There is coverage about here in the German press for example: Bild [20], [21], [22] - Hamburger Morgenpost [23] - Abendzeitung [24] - RTL [25] (...) you can also find more coverage with a simple Google News Search (language: German) --2A01:598:B90E:69A2:38D5:9D7E:8A94:866B (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The german sources are neither in depth nor reliable (and don't constitute anything close to being coverage in rs.) Praxidicae (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in support of the research done by the IP poster above. Those sources appear quite reliable, and notability is not an issue to me either.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you actually looked at them, as I noted, they aren't reliable and aren't coverage. There's a reason why they don't have wide use and aren't trusted sources. They're spam. Praxidicae (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources provided by the IP do nothing for notability, as they are simply PR blurbs and an interview (which is a primary source - which can't go to notability). Fails
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof of notability beyond slim promo-pieces noted above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE: fails BASIC, NMODEL and NONENG The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

Delete per accurate description by nom and per everyone above. Unfortunately, at this time, she's still not notable. She doesn't have an article on dewiki either (which by the way, I find rather strange as they have articles on almost anything, whether it's notable or not, actually). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News does spit out quite a bit of German-language coverage, but it's all of the tabloid and gossip press variety ("Victoria Jancke poses nude", "Victoria Jancke breaks up with boyfriend", etc.). To the very limited extent that these sources appear reliable, they are not sufficiently in depth and to base an article on. Sandstein 16:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaos Okekuoyen

AfDs for this article:

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

Player appears to fail

WP:NBASKETBALL, not improved upon in last week or two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article was modified significantly after first AFD, so

WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. He fails the criteria for basketball players. Doesn't meet the general guideliness for notability, either. There were some more or less favourable reports on him recently in the Greek spots media based mainly on the Nigerian ancestry he shares with his pal
WP:TOOSOON. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Knife. Sandstein 16:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Knife - Live At Terminal 5

)

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

Fails GNG, fails all 5 WP:NFO criteria and 3 extended criteria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per
WP:NFO #2a. Probably also #2b. gidonb (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge or Redirect to The Knife. I don't really care which, but it's clear this is not notable enough for a stand alone article. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Adamant1 above. Relevant details will be kept where it's more likely yo be of use to readers.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Reinhorn

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

Fails

WP:AUTHOR Serv181920 (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found some reviews for Reinhorn's book Big Cats ie. WP:NBOOK and is entitled to a wikiarticle, but whether there is enough for a separate wikiarticle on the author is another thing. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Move page to Big Cats (Reinhorn book). I added some sources, including a Good Housekeeping article. I echo
talk) 12:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per
WP:ARTIST
"created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" would imply that if the work is notable the author is notable. So I don't think the move argument works, but it does imply keep.

Keep Due to the relationship (married to Rainn Wilson) it is hard to judge the subjects notability separately, I searched "Holiday Reinhorn Big Cats" -wikipedia and found a number of hits. I think this is borderline case, and in my opinion, it is on the keep side. Jeepday (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepday, How is someone notable "Due to the relationship" with a notable person?Serv181920 (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serv181920 As the spouse of a notable person, they are often named in references. Same goes for other family members. "relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#cite_note-7 if the spouse is also notable but less so, it can be difficult to sort through the references to find the ones the support the notability of the less notable spouse or family member (but still notable on their own). Jeepday (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIOFAMILY "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable." My keep vote is because I believe the subject is notable on her own. Jeepday (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Good discussion above - and I am in support of Jeepday in terms on notability on her own. Sourcing is also fine in my mind.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Big Cats (Reinhorn book). - please remember that notability is
not inherited. Not enough in-depth coverage about her alone to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - additionally, being the author of a work which passes WP notability criteria is not the same as being the author of a significant or well-known work. I am however, modifying my !vote above as per Coolabahapple's comment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is notable on their own merits and achievements, which are described in the article by multiple sources.Road to Oblivion (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable author as indicated by the multiple reviews of her work and best-selling evidence above. Sometimes WP:BIOFAMILY is misused to imply it disqualifies notable people just because they're related to a more well-known person. It doesn't. Oakshade (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Isle of Man TT. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 16:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Isle of Man TT

2020 Isle of Man TT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

Cancelled event, only sources are the proposed schedule and sources to say it's cancelled. Usually notable events that are cancelled struggle to meet
WP:GNG, and no way this event does Joseph2302 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Isle of Man TT article. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been a recent talk:page
2020 Isle of Man TT and also the cancelled 2001 Isle of Man
races. The consensus of the discussion was generally against a merge to the main article. There is also a further editor consensus that any general (historical) information may only be incorporated at the year page of other article/section as appropriate and not in the main Isle of Man TT article.

There was held instead a virtual 2020 Isle of Man TT races, although some editors may not consider incorporating these race results into the 2020 Isle of Man TT article as being encyclopaedic. However, information about the economic impact of cancellation of the 2020 event may be considered to pass
WP:GNG which may be difficult to incoprate into the main Isle of Man TT article. Agljones (talk)19:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

A virtual race is not notable, and there is nothing in this article to merge (other than saying it was cancelled). This is an AfD discussion, and shouldn't be muddied by the consensus of that merge discussion. This article shouldn't be kept if it doesn't pass
WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Moreover, there is nothing to merge as the main article already has the line of useful content, that this race was cancelled. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a caution that a blanket statement that virtual races are not notable probably shouldn't be made. Some will be. Probably not this one though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actual esports races may be notable, but virtual versions of events tend not to be in my experience. And definitely not here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable info (cancelled) is already in the main article. Lots of things have been cancelled this year and that does not make them notable. If the majority of completed events for
WP:GNG path that would support keeping this article. Jeepday (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the Isle of Man TT article Hansen Sebastian^Talk 10:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is already enough related content on Isle of Man TT article, therefore there is no need to merge. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palace of Buddies

Palace of Buddies (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 band per
WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE: fails SIGCOV The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

Delete due to
absence of significant coverage. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 11:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I am not finding anything notable in the article or on google. Jeepday (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I see a consensus that the existing sourcing is insufficient. As this is a bit of a TOOSOON situation, I'm willing to restore to draft/userspace if more sources are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Abuashvili

Giorgi Abuashvili (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:NFOOTBALL
.

[26] - passing mention

[27] - passing mention

[28] - a very brief article in a national newspaper about a match he played one and a half years ago

[29] - his profile page in the World Football Scouting blog

We do keep some pages on promising youngsters that don't pass NFOOTBALL but I'm not convinced that Abuashvili has enough coverage yet. Suggest delete or draftify. Given that he has only played at under 17 level, I don't think that he is that close to passing NFOOTBALL. Spiderone 10:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reaches GNG with this piece from Georgia's main sport newspaper. Also the World Football Scouting report, is not a mere "profile" on a database but a quite comprehensive analysis of the player history and characteristics. And although the Georgian league is not fully professional, he plays in what is arguably the best Georgian club, both in terms of history and current status. --
AfD. [reply
]

I've taken the Lelo article into consideration. It's extremely brief and says little more than "16 year old makes debut and plays well". Even if we take World Football Scouting to be a reliable source, that's still just one source covering Abuashvili in-depth.
WP:TOOSOON; the player has played 27 minutes in a semi-pro league one and a half years ago and hasn't played since. At international level, he has still only played U17. This is way too soon. Spiderone 10:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I wouldn't go so far as to call this source "extremely" brief, although it si quite moderately sized. And it literally starts with "Remember this guy!", and goes on telling how it has "Something different, a lot of talent and football intelligence", the potential to become "leader of the Georgian national team" and concludes with "who will say that talented boys are no longer growing up in Georgia? If you are skeptical, watch Giorgi Abuashvili's game!". Sure more in-depth coverage would be better, but compared to some obscure english 4th division players he definitely has some notability on a national level. And regarding
WP:GNG, those are qualitative and not quantitative standards, so in theory one only good source would be enough. Regarding his career, he also played in the national cup and captained the U17 side. --Coco (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which strongly implies that there needs to be more than one source showing that level of coverage otherwise it would just say 'source'. Unfortunately, there are no inclusion criteria that says we presume someone notable for playing in a national cup or for being captain of the U17 side. Spiderone 19:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable in his country. Kolma8 (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources suggest that he is notable among Georgians? Spiderone 11:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Extremely far away from meeting football inclusion guidelines, and the coverage will not be in-depth enough to warrant inclusion either. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet GNG, which is the minimum requirement to create an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NFOOTY, not enough to pass GNG. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

McCoon Crossing, New York

McCoon Crossing, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Topos show this was a railroad crossing, not a hamlet, and even if so, the single residence at the former railroad crossing is not automatically notable. Unclear what the purpose of the source added is supposed to be: it merely mentions a "Martin McKoon" among a list of about 100 people who lived around Columbia, New York in 1810, not anything about this locale. Notability not established with substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 00:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 00:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 00:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The oldest topos don't name the place, and those that do show no buildings at the spot. Aerials don't show a building until the late 1990s or possibly even later. Seems pretty clear that it was at most a flag stop at a road crossing. Mangoe (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep the US Governments website, [30], lists it as a populated place, which is defined by them as "Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes." Nearby Ilion, New York, West Winfield, New York etc... are each also populated place. If it was just a railroad crossing as you suggest, they would list it as an "Area" or a "locale". Also just because the word "crossing" is in the name doesnt mean thats all it is, just like Grand Junction, Colorado is a city not just a junction.– So I see no reason to delete this.420Traveler (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:GNIS: there are lots of mistakes in the GNIS's classifications, for example these industrial railroad spurs supposedly a populate place. The database entry cites the topological maps, which I linked above, clearly labeling a railroad crossing at the bottom center where the tracks cross McKoons Road (from GMaps). The line you wrote "The hamlet was formerly served by the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad." doesn't make sense: the railroad ran through this locale, but it didn't stop there so it wasn't exactly "served". Millers Mills Crossing, New York and Youngs Crossing, New York are among others that are likely not notable places. Reywas92^Talk 06:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the GNIS is not a reliable source for whether something is a populated place, and it has numerous mistakes (see
WP:GNIS). I can't see any other evidence that this exists (or existed) as a settlement. Hut 8.5 19:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Reywas92:,@Hut 8.5: Do what you think needs to be done it doesn't matter to me in this case. It should be noted though, that you each would rather do so much research to find reasons to delete than trying to research information to improve the article. 420Traveler (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused what you think would improve the article: Its content is false. And even if it wasn't,
WP:BURDEN was on you, not us. Reywas92^Talk 02:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

And here's the New York gazetteer that more appropriately identifies this as a locale; would be good to cross-check other articles against this (e.g. Millers Mills Crossing is also a locale but Millers Mills is a populated place). Doing more research, in 1908 the International Brotherhood of Steam Shovel and Dredge Men got a contract to "build a large dam at McCoon's Crossing on the Lackawanna" but that's not exactly encyclopedia material. Reywas92^Talk 02:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to improve the article. I spent some time looking for good evidence that the subject actually existed. If I found any then I would have added it to the article and supported keeping it, but I didn't. However as it stands this article is actively misleading the reader by telling them something exists when we have no good reason to think it does (or did). Hut 8.5 08:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. czar 05:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Ragas in the Guru Granth Sahib

Ragas in the Guru Granth Sahib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It appears that all of the information in this article is already in Sikh music. Lede does not explain in encyclopedic detail the relationship between these raags and the Guru. Few sources are given, and there are no inline citations. The two lists that follow are poorly formatted and confusing, and their relevance is inadequately explained. The "Raag data" at the end of the page is copied verbatim from the source and not remotely encyclopedic in tone, using highly subjective and affective language to describe the music. I am not convinced that this page is either necessary or salvageable. To be continued, Harry — Say hello! 00:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. To be continued, Harry — Say hello! 00:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. To be continued, Harry — Say hello! 00:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. To be continued, Harry — Say hello! 00:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "מסמכים מעידים: המשקיע בבית"ר ירושלים - חבר במעגל הרחוק של משפחת השלטון". כאן-תאגיד השידור הישראלי. Retrieved 2020-12-09.

[2] "UAE and Israeli healthcare companies join forces". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Retrieved 2020-12-16.

[3] "מסמכים מעידים: המשקיע בבית"ר ירושלים - חבר במעגל הרחוק של משפחת השלטון". כאן-תאגיד השידור הישראלי. Retrieved 2020-12-16.

[4] "Soccer-Israel's Beitar Jerusalem says Abu Dhabi ruling family member looks to buy stake". nationalpost. Retrieved 2020-12-16.

[5] Staff, Reuters (2020-12-08). "Abu Dhabi ruling family member buys 50% stake in Beitar Jerusalem". Reuters. Retrieved 2020-12-16. {{cite news}}: |first= has generic name (help)

[6] Swissa, Eran (2020-10-11). "Israeli pop star Omer Adam celebrates Simchat Torah in Dubai". JNS.org. Retrieved 2020-12-16.

[7] staff, T. O. I. "Sheikh who bought into Beitar Jerusalem vows to show anti-Arab fans the light". www.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved 2020-12-16.

[8] "Dubai sheikhs throw party for Israel's biggest pop star". ynetnews. 2020-10-25. Retrieved 2020-12-16.

[9] "New Emirati owner of Jerusalem soccer club says 'door open' to Arab players". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 2020-12-16.

[10] "UAE and Israeli healthcare companies join forces". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Retrieved 2020-12-20.

[11] "Dubai sheikhs throw party for Israel's biggest pop star". ynetnews. 2020-10-25. Retrieved 2020-12-20.

[12] "Melody Nayeri performing on Manoto Tv".

[13] "Melody Nayeri performing on Manoto Tv".

reply

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[1]

[1]