Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 23	December 25 >

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. JGHowes ^talk 00:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navid Shams

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

Declined a speedy request because there are plenty of claims of importance, but I'm not finding much to show actual notability. However, it's possible there are plenty of sources that aren't in English, so I'll be happy to be proved wrong here. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and has low notability. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the article do not establish notability. Likewise, Google search does not show significant coverage, only passing mentions, results etc. Plus the article was created and defended by a single-purpose spammer abusing multiple accounts.—J. M. (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he hasn't international adult medals (in formal events in asia or world) and doesn't pass
Wp:GNG--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 08:09, 30 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. JGHowes ^talk 00:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity (band)

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

Vanity page, non-notable subject. I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree that the quality of the page can be questioned, but the band has enough news coverage to pass GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable band. Yes, the quality is not the best, but there are many reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Same reasons as previous votes. Kire1975 (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Changed my mind. Yes, there are a few articles in reliable sources like Cleveland.com and MTV.com but they are all
  WP:INTERVIEWs and therefore not secondary or indpependent: "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary-source and is non-independent material." --Kire1975 (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Weak Keep The article has some problems but can be fixed easily. I find that the albums from this band don't warrant articles themselves but that's a different issue. Overall there are enough reliable sources to meet
WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
How can it be fixed easily? Kire1975 (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as this staff written bio at AllMusic here which isn't an interview and there are albukm reviews there, passing
WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:25, 30 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) 00:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blussuvoll School

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

Non-notable school for ages 13 to 16. Geschichte (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Geschichte (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like the only reference in the article doesn't contain the information it is being cited for and I was unable to find anything else on the school that passes either
WP:NORG. Just trivial passing mentions on social media sites and the like. There's a few news stories that mention it, but there's nothing in-depth. So, this is a clear delete in my book. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the excessive description of its history and the structure of the building and merge a line or two about its existence to Tyholt, which could stand the addition of a section on schools in the neighborhood. BD2412 T 23:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a top level secondary school, and does not have enough sourcing for the high level of notability we require of schools that are not top level secondary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 28 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) 00:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Pak

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

Fails GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Previously deleted. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp

|username}}.

KEEP: Citations satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Previously deleted section was restored with original citations. Furthermore there is a demonstrated notability and sustained interest over time - a period of over 20 years as seen in the citations. For example a 1999 citation to Pak's musical Making Tracks[1] to the 2020 article about Ultra Nate where co-writer Lem Springsteen speak of Pak's role in the success of Free [2]. Another 2 articles from different Korean newspapers about his 2020 composition for Eunil Kang [3] and [4].

Thank you Checkers&pogo for the clarification between WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER. Please note that I am mistaken regarding my previous comment above regarding WP:MUSICBIO. As Checkers&pogo stated below, with the available citations on the Woody Pak article he in fact should be evaluated as WP:COMPOSER and, as Checkers&pogo stated, satisfies the criteria(ANNA E PARK (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

KEEP: Woody Pak doesn't satisfy WP:MUSICBIO from what I can see BUT he does satisfy WP:COMPOSER as his article has numerous citations of notable runs of his musicals Making Tracks[5] and The Wedding Banquet[6]. He clearly satisfies the criteria for WP:COMPOSER. (Checkers&pogo (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)) — Checkers&pogo (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ANNA E PARK. Cabayi (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a huge B-boy enthusiast and totally support the inclusion of the Woody Pak article in Wikipedia. Woody Pak - the composer - is citable in numerous Youtube videos of his soundtrack work, in particular the Live From Planet B-Boy Featuring Iamisee. Here are a few links to them. [7] [8] [9] [10] These are all from over 10 years ago. These should verify his role as composer in Planet B-boy in addition to the IMDB link (though I know is often not considered reliable). [11] [12] It is a notable film. Bert&Ernie70 (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC) — Bert&Ernie70 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ANNA E PARK. Cabayi (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The 115 references in this article seem to be 1) mostly referring to IMdB, and 2) otherwise devoid of depth or value. If I'm wrong, please point me to those that are discussions of sufficient depth from independent and reliable sources. BD2412 T 23:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not see any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Nearly all imdb. Other sources are just mentions - in the Guardian article, for example, it simply states "I asked Woody Pak, a guy I knew from the Manhattan School of Music, to play guitar." That is the only mention. Ultimately, it is clear someone associated with the subject or just a really big fan combed all Google results for mentions and threw them in. It doesn't amount to in-depth coverage, though. Nearly everything is imdb. There are some articles re stage productions, but again, just mentions to the tune of "Woody Pak (music), and no evidence his works make him notable. ie, these are not major productions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:06, 28 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) 23:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frenz International Cup

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

Under-15 football tournament with no significance. Coverage of youth sports is trivial in nature. Geschichte (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it would take something quite remarkable for an under 15 tournament to pass
WP:GNG and I'm not seeing that here Spiderone 22:17, 27 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. JGHowes ^talk 00:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alatrism

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

Unsourced after eleven years, seems to be a protologism that can only be found in sources that have copied from Wikipedia. Has been deleted once before through AfD in 2006. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 21:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and apparently unverifiable, stub-length article (barely more than a definition), no assertion of notability, could have been deleted speedily per G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the other opinions about this. It appears to be unverifiable and the article is no more then a definition. So, this isn't a notable enough concept to warrant an article about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:23, 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 speedy delete. Yet another version of the attempts by

not here to help build an encyclopedia and creation protected their article Kritn Ajitesh, which has yet again been moved to draftspace without a redirect. Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Kritn

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

Non notable singer and actor who doesn’t satisfy either

WP:GNG. A before search did show this but it clearly states it’s a paid post thus very unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although he was deemed to be "the hottest...in the industry", but yet fails to demonstrate
WP:NACTOR. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – no independent sources, created by a SPA who has edited using at least three accounts to try to force this actor's name into Wikipedia. Clear UPE issues. See also Draft:Kritn Ajitesh which has been declined multiple times and was finally rejected; that was nine months ago but the situation has not changed. The user who created Kritn also added the same text and references to the draft, and today they moved it to mainspace despite the exact same article being discussed in AfD. I've moved it back to draftspace. --bonadea contributions talk 10:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Lane (lawyer)

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

Not a notable (by Wikipedia standards) article on an obscure person. Also Wikipedia should not be an advertising media for an obscure local lawyer or plumber Vowvo (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is based on trivial mentions of the lawyer, as well as one primary source. The Rocky Mountain News website is probably not reliable on its own to prove notability either. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He was the subject of a full-length profile in The Denver Post, but I don't see anything else substantial. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It seems like there's some passing mentions in articles about cases he was involved in. Plus there's the Denver Post article. I don't think it's slightly under enough for him to be notable though. That said, I'm willing to change my vote if another in-depth article about him can be found. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are many non-notable lawyers who happen to represent a highly notable client from time to time. Textbook
WP:NOTINHERITED. BD2412 T 23:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 29 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. Consensus to delete, im happy to restore to an editors draftspace on request however given a couple of editors were not against that. Fenix down (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ellery Balcombe

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

Balcombe has not yet made an appearance in a fully professional league Beatpoet (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Due to not playing in a pro game yet. He probably will at some point though. So, likely this is just a case of
WP:TOSOON and should have a low barrier to recreation when he does play pro. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Move In my opinion, it should be moved to Draftspace or Userspace until he plays a pro game.-
talk) 23:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Can be easily restored if/when he makes his professional debut. Giant Snowman 16:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify - doesn't yet meet GNG or NFOOTBALL Spiderone 12:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 29 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. Deleted per

(non-admin closure) P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Ouse (Musician)

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

Before search did not give anything so that this can be supported. Fails

WP:BIO ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC):[reply]

Comment This has been speedy deleted. This discussion is moot now. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:08, 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. Closing based on early consensus. Feel free to discuss redirects on appropriate talk page(s). Missvain (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Turkish proxy conflict

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

This article is pure

original research, tying together dozens of disparate incidents to create a narrative of a proxy conflict between France and Turkey. The only cited source that mentions the word "proxy" at all is [13], which refers to proxy conflicts between Turkey and Iran. I wasn't able to find any scholarly claims of a France-Turkey proxy conflict in a google scholar search. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed, most of the lead of the article is original research (the lead makes up most of the article), while only the sections containing which countries were involved have sources. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - editor's own 'unified theory' of certain current geopolitical events. There is nothing provided in the litany of conflicts and 'allied nations' to indicate that these represent proxy conflicts, where states are involved as a means of indirectly impacting the global interests of the other 'puppetmaster' state, as opposed to simply cases where they each are addressing what they view as their own national interests in the outcomes of the specific conflicts, irrespective of what side other states are supporting. Neither the media nor their thinktank talking head guests seem to be viewing it as a proxy conflict. Agricolae (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to France–Turkey relations, no RS given for the existence of a proxy-conflict. Mztourist (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the article being original research that sounds like a personal essay and there being a lack of reliable sources to collaborate it. That said, it would make an interesting blog post or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either weak delete or weak userfy, as the article appears to be a blatant violation of
WP:SYNTH. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 22:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.71.30 (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brief merge -- there is a place for an article on diplomatic relations between two countries, though commonly these merely consist of list of ambassadors. This is NOT a war, do that a battle infobox is highly inappropriate. Other nations may have provided diplomatic or press) support, but that does not make them belligerents. Indeed good diplomacy involves trying to sooth the situation and de-escalate it. France–Turkey relations#Erdoğan-Macron controversies is where this belongs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's anything in this article worth merging, given the sourcing and neutrality issues. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:OR Shadow4dark (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the idea of a proxy war is
WP:OR Ridax2020 (talk) 01:13, 29 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) 00:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Passing

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

Delete -- While there are multiple issues with the page, I think it can be boiled down to three issues. First, it promotes a neologism which does not seem to have reached much notability (with little effect on history/current affairs) and is used in a one-sided manner. Evidence of this is seen, for instance, in the section entitled 'criticism', which only suggests other neologisms to described the supposed 'phenomenon' and attempts to justify and endorse the use of the phrase 'Korea Passing'. Second, the page itself seems to present a one-sided viewpoint against South Korea rather than explaining the term 'Korea Passing' and when it is used. This is evidenced by how the article has only been edited by a few editors, most notably since 20 August 2020. Finally, the article itself only seems to include criticisms of South Korea in general rather than actual analysis of the supposed neologism. This is shown by how the article itself seems to lack much reference to the phrase 'Korea Passing'. These issues would fall under points 3 "Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish" and 6 "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)" of the Wikipedia deletion policy. NettingFish15019 (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is very unbalanced. It would be difficult to fix this because Korea Passing is often used in a derogatory manner towards South Korean foreign policy. It would probably be better for the article to be deleted to avoid encouraging this neologism. Sakaguchi_Koji (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Striking. Confirmed sock puppet of NettingFish15019. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I am sorry for this violation of Wikipedia policy, and will take note of Wikipedia guidelines in the future. NettingFish15019 (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 12:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google new search implies the topic is notable. While the nom has issues with the content of the article, those should be addressed via editing not deletion of the article. Jeepday (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Responding to User Jeepday, 'Korea Passing' has largely been used as a neologism in some secondary sources. However, most of these sources, especially the ones cited in this article, only use the term rather than explain or say something about the term. This is under
WP:NPOV). Under the 'controversy' section, there is little to nothing about the phrase 'Korea Passing' itself but rather a description of South Korean foreign policy, which seems unlinked to the phrase itself and is already included in pages on South Korean foreign policy. There also appears to be little research done on this topic, apart from what is mentioned in secondary sources. NettingFish15019 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Striking your "delete vote". You can comment as many times as you want, but can only "vote" once. Natg 19 (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for other than socks of the nom to vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concept seems to pass GNG.
talk) 19:40, 29 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 based on clear, early consensus. Missvain (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Raikar

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

GNG fail. The source quality and the claims made in the article are questionable. Possibly (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the sources used are not reliable per
WP:BEFORE search found nothing of note. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a plenty number of video corroborations; for instance you can watch these: one, two, three, four... - Yitbe ^A-21 06:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those videos are a good advertisement for Double-sided tape. Possibly (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be open-minded and rational. Yitbe ^A-21 07:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am rational. Double-sided tape and other materials are very good for magic tricks. Possibly (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a guess. How could you know it is a double-sided tape or other materials? - Yitbe ^A-21 07:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As has been said above, the sources are not reliable, and not enough in-depth references can be found to pass
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I don't think it matters if the claims presented are true or not as long as it has enough coverage, but as others have said the coverage the subject has received is from generally unreliable sources, and not many at that. If more, better sources can be found than perhaps keep. Pladica (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2020 (AST)
Delete, tabloid coverage does not add up to
WP:BLP1E. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, Fringe claim. Fails
WP:EXCEPTIONAL No validation or independent fact check of the claims by any expert bodies. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Single news event of 2016 covered by multiple tabloids are not proofs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RationalPuff (talk • contribs) 09:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete It is time to rid Wikipedia of articles built on unreliable junk sources as this article is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 29 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) 00:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ran Maidan

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

LinkedIn type profile of a successful businessmen sourced to corporate announcements but lacking any clear indication of notability. The subject did win an industry award but that does not seem enough to base an article on. The article creator had this declined as a draft five years ago so just moved it into mainspace themselves this time. Mccapra (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra Hi, i think that some one who sold company for 1.9 bilion dolar in Israel and wan award has the right for articale, he was they key figure in the sell. I agree that 5 years ago he didn't deserve , but todays articale is very diffrent. If he needs to be deleted than this articales as well

Erez_Vigodman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisshin (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Subject is notable, sources are solid. No valid reason for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are these sources solid? I see only press releases and run-of-the-

WP:MILL announcements of business actions. FalconK (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Then you are not looking closely enough.

Yisrael Hayom and Calcalist

are solid sources for business-related and other news in Israel.

Delete The article is built on a small number of press-releases which doesn't pass

WP:BLP. There won't be anything left about this non-notable fellow after those are removed. ImTheIP (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. There's only routine business coverage about transactions and hirings and firings. No substantial personal coverage to be found. The sale price of his company is not relevant in determining notability, and a single industry award does not make a person notable either. Borisshin's comment is confusing, and seems to consider an article something that one has a "right" to, which is dangerously close to

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Yikes. FalconK (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep In Israel he has allot more articales about him, this articale is not press-releas *Ran Maidan in The CEO magazine — Preceding unsigned Borisshin (talk • contribs) 09:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an interview with the article's subject, this is a dependent source and thus does not meet
WP:RS. FalconK (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Draftify. See Draft:Dhananjay Das Kathiababa Missvain (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhananjaya Dasa Kathiyababa

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

WP:JUNK. Completely unreferenced and confusing grammar. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject's notability may be debated but probably not
WP:JUNK, there are references, there is a college as well with his name and this mention. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 18:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to draft --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft The article is obviously very poorly written but the subject does appear to be notable. Pladica (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - potentially notable but needs a rewrite Spiderone 21:45, 31 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) 00:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mindlag Project

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Article is orphaned too Binho24 (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there is no discussion yet, more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mostly primary sources, social media. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 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 redirect to Nielsen Pearson. Missvain (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nielsen/Pearson (album)

)

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

Meets neither

WP:NALBUM - "charting" at #205 on a list of 200 doesn't count. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nielsen Pearson (the band's article) and make it permanent. I have been involved in this article's recent history. One experienced WP editor (Onel5969) redirected it to the band's article last week, and then another experienced WP editor (Superastig) revived it in the belief that reliable sources back it up. I must respectfully disagree with Superastig as the album was only ever listed very briefly for its rock-bottom chart placement. There is already a more viable article for its hit single "If You Should Sail", which attracted more attention at the time. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Only notable album from the duo. Sources 1 & 2 talk about the album, whether briefly or fully. Source 3 indicates that it charted. Source 4, which talks about the single from the album, states a brief description about it. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass
WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:INHERITED argument. The only source which might actually be reasonable is the second one, but I can't see it to check, because it's a book – in any case this is only one source, not the multiple sources required to show notability. Richard3120 (talk) 23:38, 31 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) 00:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Mir Hasan

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

Not enough in-depth sourcing to meet

WP:GNG. Most of the sourcing is about the article's ancestors, and notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious IP sockpuppetry

Save: Sayyid Mir Hadan is a saint that is well known in Kabul. Furthermore people in Pakistan, India and Kashmir venerate him. Besides his popular relatives like his children he himself is also well known for guiding people and converting many Hindus to Islam.

We were very happy to see his Wiki for me and my family in Afghanistan actually call on him and his family members. That is why we want to thank the Wikipedia community.

I think we should include his missionary contribution to his Wiki and shorten the points that are wanting the initiator of this process to delete this page.

That is why I think we should save this article.

- Sayyid Assadullah Musavi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D1:CF14:CE88:2467:EB93:E8E0:75FD (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Mir Hasan is an old saint whose name is still alive in Kabul.

I can remember my mom called on him many times for help.

We should really save this article and make it better rather ghan delete it.

Thank you

Alireza Rizvi Sadaat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Reza Rizvi Sadaat (talk • contribs) 12:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Save, save and save: Dear Wikipedia community,

We appreciate, when you do not delete this article.

It is such a precious source for Muslims like me.

We can work on the edit of this article but not delete it.

Besides. I have been to Lahore at the shrine of the sons of Sayyid Mir Hasan and the people there loved Sayyid Mir Hasan. Especially the mureeds of his relative Hazrat Ishaan call on him.

Furthermore there is a lexikon I have read called "Tazkare Khanwade Hszrat Ishaan" which has been quoted in this article and it is without doubt the best historical source. I can bare witness of its seriosity.

So kindly do not delete this article.

With faithful regards

Ghulam Hasan Gurgani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D1:CF14:CE88:5D59:95E7:F8ED:B4B9 (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well these are all in all also very good arguments of these Western German Mureeds.

They are actually based in the same city, so it is not right to call them socketpuppets.

And eventhough their arguments and my arguments above are not to be ignored.

We are totally right and will prevail.

-Sayyid Mir Israfil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyid Mir Israfil (talk • contribs) 19:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited, and the sourcing is not at a level to suggest that
WP:GNG is met. Arguments to keep appear to be based on emotion and are no substitute for actually meeting policies and guidelines. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I agree, notability is not inherited; also, none of the sources listed can be accessed for verification.TH1980 (talk) 21:35, 26 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) 00:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Mir Muhammad Jan

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

Notability is not inherited, most of the article is not about the subject, but about his ancestors.

WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious IP sockpuppetry

Save: Hello dear Wikipedia community.

"Ghazi Saheb" Sayyid Mir Muhammad Jan is well known in my hole country Afghanistan, for his various charity projects.

We were really happy to see the Wikipedia page of Sayyid Mir Muhammad Jan and his whole family and even his grandson Sultan Masood Dakik.

Actually my grandfather was orphaned and helped by his holiness Sayyid Mir Muhammad Jan.

Well these are all in all also very good arguments of these Western German Mureeds.

They are actually based in the same city, so it is not right to call them socketpuppets.

And eventhough their arguments and my arguments above are not to be ignored.

We are totally right and will prevail.

-Sayyid Mir Israfil

Hence we really love him for that.

We are not the only people he helped but there are without overdriving hundreds of families.

It is becauaw he was a very influential Colonel in the Royal Afghan National Army and highly respected by the Afghan elders.

Hence we really appreciate when you could sace this article.

Yours sincerely

-Sayyid Assadullah Musavi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D1:CF14:CE88:2467:EB93:E8E0:75FD (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Mir Muhammad Jan is so well known in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is really a pleasure to see him in Wikipedia.

We really will be honored when his article is saved.

He was a very well known officer and humanitarian. Some lf my friends in Pakistan know him and call him "Shah Saheb" out of respect.

We should really work on this article together, but not delete it.

Thank you

Ali Reza Rizvi Sadaat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Reza Rizvi Sadaat (talk • contribs) 12:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Save, Save! DO NOT DELETE!:

Honorable Wikipedia community,

My name is Ghulam Hasan and I am from Lahore, Pakistan. I come to see the Wikipedia page and was very happy, but also shocked...

Sayyid Mir Muhammad Jan is very well known in Lahori history. In Lahore we have wells named after him, because he helped so many orphans there.

Me and my family love him and his family very much.

Everytime his grandson Sultan Masood Dakik and his family arrives in Mehmoodabad (named after his ancestor Hazrat Ishaan) we break in tears.

Last year his son Sayyid Raphael came in year 2019 and has visited the Ministry of religious affairs and mayor.

They are all really popular and holy to us and have deserved Wikis.

With sincere and faithful regards

Ghulam Hasan Gurgani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D1:CF14:CE88:5D59:95E7:F8ED:B4B9 (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well these are all in all also very good arguments of these Western German Mureeds.

They are actually based in the same city, so it is not right to call them socketpuppets.

And eventhough their arguments and my arguments above are not to be ignored.

We are totally right and will prevail.

-Sayyid Mir Israfil

Delete. Notability is not inherited, and the sourcing is not at a level to suggest that
WP:GNG is met. Arguments to keep appear to be based on emotion and are no substitute for actually meeting policies and guidelines. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 21:38, 26 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) 00:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeila and Lughaya

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

There is no evidence for "Zeila and Lughaya" being a region within its own right. Both are districts within Awdal as per Regions of Somaliland. Therefore, this page not meeting notability requirements as not a single citation states such a region exists. This issue has been highlighted in the talk page before but is yet to be actioned. Jacob300 (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Jacob300 (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It does appear this was created as a state in 2011 or 2012 and is referenced as a "clan-state" in some literature: [14] SportingFlyer T·C 13:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The few sources I was able to open up seem to indicate that there is an entity with that name, or called Saylac and Lughaya. More research seems to be the key, but I'd like to keep in the hope that this article can be expanded with better sources.--Concertmusic (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both
talk) 12:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete/redirect~~Comment~~ Could the keep votes that note sources provide links and/or quotes? I've found a few which discuss them as districts, but not as a combined entity. CMD (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Changed to delete, insufficient sourcing. CMD (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All sources cited refer to "Zeila" and "Lughaya" being towns in Awdal region - as per stated in the Regions of Somaliland page. Also, this government publication on Awdal state that both Zeila and Awdal alongside Baki and Borama are districts [[16]]. In none of the sources cited, is it claimed that there is such a region known as "Zeila and Lughaya". There is a mention in passing of "active efforts" to create a clan state such "Zeila/Lughaya State"alongisde others in [[17]]. However, this source also does not refer to it being a region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob300 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[18] [19] [20] [21]. Some of those (the blogspot) clearly aren't
WP:RS, but putting them here since piecing this together using only English language sources is proving difficult. SportingFlyer T·C 12:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Quite frankly the blogspot post seems the best there, although this is a really hard area to get sources on in the best of times. It suggests this purported entity was proposed/established/created as part of the same turmoil that brought about Awdalland, so it seems relevant for this AfD that the relatively recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awdalland, while not widely participated in, led to a redirect. CMD (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Jacob3000 and CMD, there is a dearth of reliable sources on a combined entity with this name, this falls short of
WP:V and should be deleted. --Kzl55 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Zeila and Lughaya officially seceded from Somaliland, claiming to be a federal state of Somalia, here are a few factual citations President of Zaila and lughaya state State of Somalia, also here, here, here in additional to the existing citations that should be enough to show a pass or keep, although the article needs to be updated. SultanSanaag (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Citations provided are unlikely to meet
WP:RS requirements. Both Youtube links provided [22] [23]
show events in Canada and do not show any footage on the ground.

Additionally, the map provided [24] merely shows Zeila District as per Regions of Somaliland and does not refer to a "Zeila and Lughaya state".

Also, Google Scholar shows 3 search results for "Zeila and Lughaya" whereby all of which are unrelated to the article and discuss districts [25]. Moreover, Google Books similarly has 0 results on "Zeila and Lughaya" as an entity [26] Many thanks Jacob300 (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources mention any establishment or existence of such state. To answer @SultanSanaag, an amateur video clip of a party in Canada is not a source that can be used and fails to meet
WP:V
and should be deleted.

talk) 22:42, 31 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 21:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lokern, California

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

More sidings in the desert with nothing around them. The area is now known as a rare habitat but it shows no evidence of having every been a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless I'm missing something, and assuming the Google co-ordinates are correct, this is just a bit of road in the desert, with nothing around it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:37, 25 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) 00:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rand, California

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

Another former isolated siding with nothing around it in any era. Not a notable place in any way. Mangoe (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although it will likely never grow past a stub, it should not be completely deleted. EPIC STYLE ^{(LET'S TALK)} 02:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Geschichte (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a populated place it fails the most basic policy,
WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless I'm missing something, and assuming the Google co-ordinates are correct, this is just a bit of road in the desert, with nothing around it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Randsburg, California, as they seem to be the same place. And notice how there 's plenty to say about it and so the nay-sayers above are refuted. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article itself says that they are over four miles from each other, I don't see how they are the same place. The only line of actual content in the Rand article is unsourced, and I doubt that it is true: there is or was an ATSF branch running directly into Johannesburg, right next to Randsburg. Mangoe (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly just another railroad station that fails to meet basic notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 05:17, 31 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) 00:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Heiserman

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NAUTHOR. Even if this could be fixed (don't ask me to mop it up), there's no indication he was a notable author. The obit appears to be paid for. Ping me if you can prove me wrong.Bearian (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:20, 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 Draftify. See Draft:Sakett Saawhney Missvain (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sakett Saawhney

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

Article was created by sockpuppets of Adnanjavidkhan1, and the article completely skipped the AfC process. I think the article's notability needs to be evaluted, knowing that the socks behind the article have been blocked in other projects for being a promotional account.

talk) 23:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep The article appears to be notable but based on what CrystallineLeMonde said I was defer the article back to the AfC process.--Blurz (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this diff shows that the user removed the AfC tags and moved the article to mainspace. --

talk) 12:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep He has worked in many films. Passes GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is that the article was moved into mainspace before even got reviewed, and also, there's a significant amount of sockpuppetry in the edit history of the article. See the page history and the SPI page for Adnanjavidkhan1 (sockmaster). A page created by the same sock category also have been nominated for deletion.

My suggestion would be to draftify this article and let people improve the article where it becomes a normal article once again.--

talk) 11:01, 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) 00:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Even though the nomination does not give any proper reasons to delete the article, the subjects references show barely the minimum of notability required and weirdly enough, I cannot find any sources myself. Whatever the case, if this article were to be kept, it would need major rewriting and copyediting. He has only produced 4 films and has not yet gained his significant place in the industry, therefore not passing
WP:GNG, but that can be argued as I cannot find even one source about him. Coreykai (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:20, 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. Sandstein 21:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comics Village

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

Fails

WP:GNG; I could not find notable coverage about this website. Article is also unsourced. lullabying (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither could I. Likely self-promotion. Dark knight 2149 08:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pending: Until
WP:RSN determines if Comics Village is a reliable source. Dark knight 2149 00:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - not enough in-depth sources to show it passes
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - this fails GNG and
WP:NWEB Spiderone 15:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep — two main reasons to retain the article are, (1) at one point it seems to have been the main English-language site for reviews of manga, which can be seen in the manga articles that refer to Comics Village reviews (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:ANIME/RS does not list it as a reliable source for reviews. lullabying (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
For the record, talk) 04:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

For the integrity of the nomination, I just opened an inquiry at
WP:RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Comics_Village Dark knight 2149 00:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for checking, though whether the source is reliable or not doesn't relate to the article being notable. lullabying (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Comics Village was itself a news site, it's not terribly surprising that there's not much outside coverage of it by other news sites is exactly the reason
verifiably so you need to supply sources to make them. ~ El D. (talk to me) 13:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Whether it's RS is irrelevant to the question of notability. I do not see evidence of GNG being met in this case, so I support deletion. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request please comment upon this reference from before the AfD [27] and this reference that Stoshmaster found [28]. Just saying for each of them 'not reliable', 'not significant', or 'not independent' will do. ~ El D. (talk to me) 13:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First link comes from what is now Comics Bulletin (active link here), which is reliable, but in this case not independent. It was posted by Craig Johnson, who was also writing a column for the new Comics Village site according to the post and several columns listed in an archive. Second link is really about the person Phill Hall rather than the site. It discusses something he wrote while there, but it's not really the point of the interview. -2pou (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to delete this but last call just in case anyone else wants to weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried very hard to find coverage for this site, as I always find it sad when an article on a reliable source gets deleted, but I could find nothing of note.
talk) 18:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as the sources in question do not satisfy the GNG. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:48, 29 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) 16:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Spahr

William J. Spahr (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:RS. Unsourced since 2011. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There may have been a failure of
WP:AUTHOR #1 - Spahr's work on Zhukov is "widely cited by peers or successors". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

It was my understanding that the Washington Post link was akin to a
death notice which would not be relevant in establishing notablilty rather than an obituary but I fully admit I am not familiar with how these things work in the US. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:AUTHOR. Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per my search, fails WP:GNG. The books are rather
WP:MILL; if they were significant, you'd expect to see in-depth reviews of them. (t · c) buidhe 16:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
How are the reviews that I cited this morning not in-depth? There is only one for each book, so maybe not enough yet for notability, but they certainly seem to be in-depth, running for a couple of pages each.
Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Has an obituary in the WaPo, which is more than a death notice. I found more details about him (with a picture) here. The article can be fleshed out from this and the WaPo article. (Like all West Pointers, his Army career can be charted.) Also found some book references to his service [29][30][31] Found many more in-depth reviews of his books. [32][33] The books are widely cited and influential. eg [34][35] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews are just that, reviews. "Widely cited" requires more than just a couple of citations. Mztourist (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence. Reviews are one of the ways in which
Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I mean that two reviews don't amount to "significant critical attention" for the purposes of 4(c) of AUTHOR. Books get reviewed, 4(c) requires a lot more than two reviews in US Army publications. Only if there were several reviews in significant mainstream publication like the New York Review of Books, major newspapers or magazines or dedicated history publications would 4(c) be met. I don't have either of his books, but looking on Amazon, Zhukov only has one 4 star review, while Stalin's Lieutenants has two reviews one 4 star and one 3 star and I don't see any praise from other renowned authors or publications for either book, indicating that these were not significant works. Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have four reviews so far, not two, including in Phil Bridger (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok The Journal of Slavic Military Studies seems to be a respected publication, but its the only non-US military review and so I still don't think that amounts to "significant critical attention" for the purposes of 4(c). In relation to Amazon I was pointing out that neither of his books seems to have praise from any renowned authors or publications, but the fact that there are so few reader reviews and their very low rankings among bestsellers in the subject areas also indicates what insignificant works these are, particularly when compared to other books about Zhukov. Mztourist (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Insignificant", or "highly technical and thus not Popular". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails
WP:GNG, article does not show his notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:VAGUEWAVE. What does that even mean? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:ARTN
"'Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.'"

Keep As soldier I do not see his medals providing notability, but when I search for {Zhukov: The Rise and Fall of a Great Captain (1993)} in google books I find LOTS of books that list it as a source. Which gets him
WP:AUTHOR "'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.'" Jeepday (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Please provide some links to those "LOTS of books" that list Spahr's Zhukov book as a source. Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Army doesn't give the DSM to just anybody - that award is good enough for me for notability. Otherwise the info is supported by good references.--Concertmusic (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth in order of precedence so not significant and doesn't satisfy #1 of WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. Please provide a policy-based justification for your Keep vote.Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He wasn't prominent enough as a soldier to inherently be notable. There's not enough coverage to meet GNG -- the WaPo obit is under the 'local' section, and is pitifully brief. His books did get a couple of reviews in rather niche publications, but I don't think it's enough to push him over the edge of meeting NAUTHOR— I'm seeing a few reviews of one book and one of another, we generally expect multiple reviews of multiple publications. It's admittedly borderline, I also found an article or two that mention him in terms of involvement in a diplomatic incident, but again I don't think it's quite enough to push him into the realm of notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of a small number of Western historians authoring works on Soviet military history in the period he was active in. Reviews in specialized military history journals count towards notability as a military historian, and both Zhukov and Stalin's Lieutenants are often cited in works about the Eastern Front, for example [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. Discounting reviews in specialist journals simply reinforces systemic bias towards popular historians. Kges1901 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has been covered in serious academic journals, which should count for far more than being covered by non-specialist journalists in the press. We seem to see a lot of these "it's not the latest meme on social media so it can't be notable" deletion discussions recently. If we are to be a serious encyclopedia rather than a pop culture compendium then this needs to stop.
Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per
Phil Bridger, Kges1901, and Concertmusic. Thriley (talk) 03:50, 31 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. Missvain (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beat the Chef UK

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

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

The evidence here does not show notability . I do not know why this was moved from draft space DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The move from draft to mainspace was an AfC outcome. While it is difficult to get excited about an article on a daytime cookery show, a multi-series series commissioned on national TV should meet
coverage, beyond routine industry announcements and schedule listings, and passing mentions relative to presenter Andi Oliver - more needed to demonstrate notability? AllyD (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[[user[reply
]

Comment agree with AllyD on all points.Star7924 (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - albeit with no great enthusiasm. A gNews search for "Beat the Chef" seems to find a plurality of articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

all trivial. We need substantial coverage. Articles like this are one of the key reasons this word is in the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All trivial, WP:MILL coverage that no way merits this an article. Java Hurricane 13:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:17, 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. Sandstein 21:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Hilton

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

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

Fails GNG, fails WP:ARTIST "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why does it fail GNG? There's an radio interview with the subject, two news stories about him, and four magazine articles about his art. This seems like ample coverage in reliable sources. I've just added another interview and a news story. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added more info; we're up to seven interviews with him in RS, which should satisfy GNG, —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that interviews are not generally considered to be RS as they are not independent of the subject. Some might be OK if they have additional text that is not interview-style.
talk) 04:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The interviews do indeed contain additional material and so count as independent reliable sources. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Giantflightlessbirds: No, interviews are not independent of the subject and thus do not count towards notability. If this was an interview in the New Yorker, or 60-minutes, or similar venue in NZ or Australia, then it might count. As it is, this is run-of-the-mill local human interest material. Netherzone (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I looked at all the sources in the article, and my conclusion is that If you take away Billy Apple, this person is not notable. All of the significant coverage stems from his association with Apple. Notability is
talk) 06:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

changing to Merge, into Billy Apple, per Netherzone's analysis below. Possibly (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC) (formerly ThatMontrealIP)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources there for GNG to be met. Just because he frequently works with another notable person does not mean that he can’t be notable himself. I don’t understand ThatMontrealIP‘s comment “I looked at all the sources in the article” as many of those are offline. Schwede 66 15:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk) 16:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the clarification. I have no view on the performance art and exhibition record; what matters is his coverage in reliable sources. Schwede 66 17:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: If I take something like this source on the Billy apple work, and remove everything that is about Billy Apple, there is precious little said about Hilton. Additionally, the coverage of his single performance is just that: coverage of one event. Finally, there is no independent exhibition history with accompanying reviews, which is a hallmark of any professional artist's practice. I guess we will have to disagree; my take is that the coverage is not significant. Note my username changed today from ThatMontrealIP to > Possibly (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User name change; do I take it from your old name that you are based in Canada? If so, it might pay for me to point out that the offline source North & South, which reported on him four times between 2010 and 2017, is a quality magazine "specialising in long-form investigative stories". That's the one that swayed me towards support. Of course, we don't know whether those articles dealt with Hilton in depth or whether he received peripheral mentions. If we wanted to, we could enquire with the author of this bio as to what those sources actually say. Schwede 66 08:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I should come back to this as in the meantime, some of the offline sources have hit my email inbox. All in all quite a bit of in-depth material. What I've got is the following:
May 2010 Metro Magazine article; full-page photo and a further page of write up. The article is about Hilton and goes into some depth.

Oct 2015 North & South interview; two pages with a small photo and a half-page Circos diagram. One page column of write up and the rest is Q&A.

2020 Billy Apple book; several pages on the why and how of Hilton analysing Apple's DNA, how the Circos diagram came about and what it means, and how Hilton went about analysing the 1970s stool samples and what was learned from that.

If anybody would like to look at these sources, send me an email and I'll pass it on. Schwede 66 02:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
WP:GNG is questionable. Many of the citations are primary sources: the interviews, listings at Tech Futures Lab, and The Big Idea - these do not contribute to notability. After a BEFORE search I could find no evidence of inclusion in notable museum collections nor an exhibition record outside of the work done with the Billy Apple material. As mentioned above by Possibly, without Billy Apple, what/where is his work? Notability is not inherited. Nor could I find a substantial publishing/citation record as a scientist/academic. He organized a march and a show of $15 photos, but that's not enough for a stand alone article. Artists just do these sorts of things: make art, organize events. The citations in North & South (and some interviews) are by the article creator (who also sold objects by Hilton at her Pop-up store). Not sure if this is a "connected" COI (perhaps no money was exchanged?), or (AGF) coincidental. Merging seems like the best solution - merge the artwork to Billy Apple and the atheist march to the visual arts subsection of List of atheists (miscellaneous). Netherzone (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi there, Jenny Nicholls here. (The article creator). I want to thank you all for your interest in this page. It is a fine learning curve for me. I would like to point out a couple of things which might help. The list of exhibitions is not complete - I think there was local media about at least one which I cannot locate online. And I think the 'Billy Apple' connection is a red herring, really. These would be three radical works whoever had donated the cells. Hilton is the leading artist within this sphere in New Zealand. And considering it is an area few of our journalists remotely understand, in a country with almost no specialist art writers in our daily newspapers, his work is very well documented. He has raised serious conceptual questions - not painted petri dishes - and, since 2010, every time he has a show it is well reported in the best media in the country. I have not included earlier exhibitions here. So he certainly passes the "a significant new concept, theory, or technique" criterion within his chosen field. I have forwarded PDFs of the Metro article by Frances Morton to Schwede66 - and the pages from the book which describe how important Hilton's work has been to Apple (who some might say piggybacks on it.) I think it would be an injustice to subsume Hilton within Apple. Nine years ago, this popup shop you mention actually belonged to my partner Greg Downie, (I can see why you might think otherwise) and he sold interesting stuff from many people in it as a service to them. But I am very happy to roll with the views of such experienced editors! it has all been very interesting. Tahatai (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way,
North & South and Metro both have their own Wikipedia pages, if it helps! Tahatai (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Hello @Tahatai: I am wondering if you could elaborate on what you mean by So he certainly passes the "a significant new concept, theory, or technique" criterion within his chosen field. What new concept, theory or technique did he bring to the field of visual art or to science? Netherzone (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, happy to, Netherzone. 1. New technique in art: "This is more than an art-world gimmick; it’s real science. Apple’s cells are being used for research." Quote NZ art writer Anthony Byrt in Metro magazine in a long feature called 'The Immortal Artist', 2015. (online ref provided on Hilton's page). 2. New concept to New Zealand art: Here is another paragraph from Byrt's Metro piece: “I’d like art to do something that science hasn’t done, or maybe doesn’t have the nerve to do,” [Hilton] explains. “And when I was thinking about a project that would have both real art and science value, Billy’s practice fit perfectly. Normally, for ethics approval, you have to make sure the people are anonymous. But the whole point is that it’s Billy; they’re called Billy Apple® cells. So Billy signing away his privacy was a kind of ethical backdoor.” It’s the most complex and radical project Apple has been involved in since the name change. It’s also how the brand will outlast the body. “Making the cells and the DNA sequencing available to everybody and anybody means they’re effectively open-sourced,” Hilton says, “which is what a lot of brands now do, not charging for their products — Google, Facebook and the rest.” (Byrt quote ends). Hilton is creating a cell line as an art work: treating a human as a 'brand' in art/genetic terms (and this was clearly his idea, not Apple's: there are many sources for that): and that isn't all: he is using art for scientifically useful ends by donating these cells to an open source lab for research. I would call that a fresh concept and certainly a new technique in art: especially New Zealand art. Hilton has the training, unique in a NZ artist, to bring the latest in genetic and biochemical advances to NZ contemporary art. I have been writing science columns for over a decade in NZ and I have never come across this before. Anthony Byrt, I need to say, is one of New Zealand's foremost writers on contemporary art. (Probably deserves a Wikipedia page as he has written a couple of books!) And: Re science: new concept/technique and theory - if you hear of anyone else outside Hilton's group comparing the bacteria in an artist's poo samples which are over 40 years apart, or even considering doing this, I'd be interested to hear about it. This was a published peer reviewed paper. New concept? (in art, and science?) Tick. New technique? (In art, and science?) Tick. But I thank you for your rigor. Tahatai (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see how
WP:NARTIST
, as he meets none of the criteria. I think the best we can do here is ask if he meets GNG.

Finally, the article creator, while well-intentioned, also seems to have a clear
conflict of interest, given that she has written about the article subject and been in some kind of business with him at one point. Possibly (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi there. The writer here again. Apple and Hilton received an honorary mention in the category of hybrid art at the 2010 Prix Ars Electronica for the work: this can be found online and it is referenced on H's page. I have answered the COI points : I am not Hilton's agent, nor have I ever been. I have never taken a cut of anything he has sold. I was part writer of one of the most important N&S articles (the other writer was the deputy editor of North & South). But other writers like Frances Morton at Metro and Anthony Byrt (also Metro) could be given more weight here. I am happy to supply the PDfs (the Morton piece is not online). I must say I am a bit bemused by all of this. H is clearly using new concepts and techniques for an artist, particularly a NZ artist. He has far more high quality references than most NZ artists or writers. Tahatai (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found and corrected the Honorary mention he got with Apple, which was originally called an award for Hilton. If you know an article subject and have met with them and written about them, we consider that to be a COI. It's not necessarily a big deal, but it needs to be disclosed on your user page in a certain way. I have left you some links on your talk page about how to do that. Possibly (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I saw that. I like your name Possibly BTW! Very cool. Tahatai (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tahatai, Hello again and thank you for sharing what you have here; please allow me to expand on two matters: (1) As to the career “Ticks”, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of artists working for over 50 years in the field of sci-art beginning in the early 1960s starting with the cybernetic artists such as Kluver-EAT, Pask, and many others. As to bodily-engaged art working with body fluids/matter, again there are many precedents across half a century, including Manzoni in the 60s, Stelarc (Australia) starting in the 70s, Mary Kelly, Acconci, etc. Regarding artists working with DNA and gene culture, there are many across the globe in addition to Kac starting in 1980s and 90s, i.e. CAE collective, Quinn, Manglano-Ovalle, Szczena, Dewey-Hagborg, Kathy High,etc. There is an entire lab in Australia devoted to this arena! Hilton may be of interest locally and to you personally, but he simply did not originate new concepts, innovate new techniques nor initiate new theories. The criteria for WP:ARTIST, WP:NSCIENTIST, WP:ACADEMIC, nor WP:GNG per nom are not met. (2) With all due respect, you do have a COI as a connected editor, having written about his work over a period of several years in relation to your employment at North & South, (and other publications?) Even if you were a volunteer, it would still be advocacy. Regarding the sales, the Herald states “Jenny Nicholls has ensured her pop-up shop…”, so one assumes you were promoting Hilton’s work. These well-intentioned efforts are not independent of the subject. I am sorry to be so direct, and I agree he's an interesting artist, but at this time he does not meet the notability guidelines. It would be helpful if someone could add this AfD to the Science-related and Academia-related delete-sort lists so editors could analyze his contributions in those fields, perhaps he meets those requirements. Netherzone (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion looks confusing to make a decision on the AfD, so I decided to relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
9thx my edits! 10:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Seems to have enough reliable sources to meet
WP:GNG.Duncan079 (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@Duncan079:, the sources are either primary or written by article creator, or are about Billy Apple, not him. If you find a moment, please take a closer look. Netherzone (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment to @Duncan079: - I noticed that your user account was created just over one day ago, and you have only made 22 total edits to WP. Almost all of them were at AfDs, and that you are including various shortcut WP: policy links to many of them. How did you even find this AfD? I'm wondering how you learned so quickly, or if you have another account you use? Netherzone (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan079 has been blocked as a Sockpuppet - their !vote should be struck. Netherzone (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be some confusion here. Sources that happen to be written by the article creator are in this case still reliable sources, and count towards GNG. User:Schwede66 has seen them and so have I. The meet all the criteria of RS, are not primary sources or puff pieces, and specifically and in depth discuss the subject and his work. If Schwede66 or I had written an identical article the sources would have been more than sufficient. COI is only relevant with regards to User:Tahatai continuing to edit the article, and any possible bias or lack of neutrality. I'm still not convinced there's a serious conflict of interest here, and the article as it stands is a balanced summary of those reliable sources. It's puzzling to me that there is an issue here. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giantflightlessbirds: According to the article, Hilton has done one performance artwork not related to Billy Apple, and several works entirely based on Billy Apple. You take away Billy Apple and you have an artist who did one performance. So it's all about not inherited, and the result here should be merge to Billy Apple. Possibly (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment this is a tricky one. The independent secondary reliable sources come down to the two North & South articles, and the Central Leader article. Normally, that wouldn't be sufficient alone. The Ars Honorary Mention also, is not sufficient alone. Does it add up together? The tricky thing is that the work got the attention it did because of Billy Apple. Is Apple a collaborator, or the artists material itself? So does that mean that Hilton is insignificant, or that Hilton is crafty enough to understand what material is necessary to convey an idea into the world? Maybe the compromise is to make the article about Billy Apple® or The Immortalisation of Billy Apple® series --Theredproject (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the Otago Daily Times story, plus the Metro profile. That's five independent reliable sources, even if we exclude coverage of his collaboration with Billy Apple and the other incidental mentions. Ample to satisfy GNG, and far more than we get for most articles about New Zealand artists, writers, and rugby players. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NARTIST. I think this sets a bad precendent. Possibly (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
He was born, he received an education, he organized a $15 photo show, he organized a debate, he collaborated with a famous artist, he did a performance piece, he co-authored four papers, he got an honorable mention, he got a little local press. This does not distinguish him as an artist, it is run-of-th-mill
WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the work just is not there. I agree with Possibly that if the article is kept it sets a troubling precedent for maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Great discussion and input from the author. No issues to me on any of the usual arguments on notability and reliability.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So many keep votes are not based on policy or plain assertions so further policy based input necessary. So far the source analysis leans against the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - unconvinced by concerns that there is not enough coverage of him. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets the requirements for sufficient in-depth sources; also meets the criteria of "new concept in art". I also fail to see any COI from the article creator and certainly no commercial relationship. MurielMary (talk) 03:12, 29 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 21:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Odion

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

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

The article does not meet
WP:NOTINHERITED from family or birth.   // Timothy :: talk 07:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk 07:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk 07:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:16, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Staples

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

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

No indication of notability per
WP:NBIO. I am unable to find discussion of the individual in multiple reliable sources. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 22:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article appears to be well-researched. When I try the Books and Scholar searches, I find the subject in multiple different ways, such as being cited in other literature, or where his books are used as material in classroom settings. Those may not be RS, but in terms of notability we have some evidence. I see the article as a relevant addition to a comprehensive encyclopedia.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:03, 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) 01:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has
~~WP:GNG significant coverage. MISSIONgreen=SILVER (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — MISSIONgreen=SILVER (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of LOVELY LADY45 (talk • contribs). [reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time is the charm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to
WP:BASIC (although [41], currently cited in the article, is a start). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as there enough reliable religious sources cited in the article that have significant coverage of him such as Patheos, and Catholic Sun, so he passes
WP:GNG and therefore deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I just added an additional book source for the biographical details to reduce reliance on Catholic.com. I will try to do some more of this. There are quite a bit of sources to go through on Staples. Avemaria81 (talk) 04:40, 28 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. Discounting WEPrism222 as a blocked sock. Sandstein 21:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Tormey

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

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

Article fails
WP:NACTOR; he’s only had one significant role as Louie in Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 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) 01:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a google search and he was easy to find. He meets
WP:GNG notability by having significant news coverage. WEPrism222 (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC) WEPrism222 (talk)[reply
]

Keep as I am in agreement with the reason listed above. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I unlike WEPrism222 I wasn't able to find much news coverage. There was some about a lawyer with the same name. Kolma8 (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:15, 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. Sandstein 21:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Church School Beldih, Jamshedpur

Church School Beldih, Jamshedpur (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 school, fails
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Java Hurricane 13:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 13:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 13:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:V and my standards. I can't find any of the usual news sources about this school. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:12, 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 redirect to Rational Software#Products. I don't really understand the conversation that took place here, but, I am making an "executive decision" based on the one suggestion. Missvain (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rational Publishing Engine

Rational Publishing Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Jcarlosmartins (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rational_Software#Products. I have copied text from the lead there and the history of this page needs to remain available for attribution purposes. ~Kvng (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to remove your changes as you did not provide sources. Please, add any sources to be able to have a redirect. Jcarlosmartins (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had to revert that because the material is not unsourced and
WP:DEMOLISH ~Kvng (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, you are adding unsourced content and that is not acceptable. --Jcarlosmartins (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, I am moving unsourced material. Is that also not acceptable? Seems like that would put us on the slippery slope to removing all unsourced material. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced material must be removed from Wikipedia. Please, add refereces to the content if you want to move it. Please, see: Wikipedia:Verifiability --Jcarlosmartins (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:09, 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 no consensus. Very little participation. Perhaps there are non-English sources? Please see if any improvements can be made before renominating. Missvain (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mawj Aldarraji

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

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

apparent promotional article for amateur athlete. Anything that would do equally well as a web page for her is promotional. I cannot judge notability as I cannot read the references, but I assume they support the promotionalism. Many seem to be interviews with her where she presumably says whatever she cares to about herself. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with this style of editing as I almost always use the visual editor, so first, please forgive me if I am not abiding by typical formatting standards! But as a bilingual person I can assure you that the links in Arabic go beyond personal promotion and include wide-ranging third-party media reports about her activities and stances on Iraqi gender politics. -jackie.salzinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackie.salzinger (talk • contribs) 12:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
Help:Introduction to talk pages if you want to see the full guide. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Sdkb: I suppose the most obvious resources are her inclusion in the Iraqi Women Right's ambassadorship and "For a New Iraq" campaigns, which are political rather than athletic promotion. The DW link is to her participation in a television debate on polygyny, nothing to do with her career. While most of the TV interviewers do ask about her background, preparations, and ambitions, they also cover topics that have social significance, like gendered upbringing and expectations (and I would encourage other en-wiki editors to consider this within the Iraqi cultural context, perhaps starting with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Iraq which I haven't myself looked through but hope may provide some suggestion as to the potential force of that speech in the local context). Jackie.salzinger (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it's okay if they're in Arabic) to independently-reported profiles or other news coverage about her. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 11:37, 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) 15:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time is the charm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:09, 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 merge to Grand Targhee Resort. Missvain (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stick of Truth (Grand Targhee)

Stick of Truth (Grand Targhee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

For some reason the speedy of this snow depth indicator was refused by an admin, so an AfD it is. Complete lack of notability, only independent source is an article in the very small and local weekly
Fram (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I, as the decliner of the speedy, was not acting as an administrator. Just an ordinary editor (albeit, a consummate winter sports participant).

After looking for sources relating to
notability, I see that indeed the universe is much smaller than I originally perceived. As such, I would be happy with redirecting to a new section in the Grand Targhee Resort article. —EncMstr (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Frankly, I'm not sure this strenuously local-hyped triviality is even worth a redirect... but whatever, they are, after all, cheap. But definitely not standalone article material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:52, 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) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Grand Targhee Resort. -- The Anome (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:08, 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. Sandstein 21:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New World Island Academy

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/New World Island Academy

Articles for deletion/New World Island Academy (2nd nomination)

New World Island Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable school or relevant in any way. --UserNL2020 (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 04:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 04:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 04:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the sourcing is just not there to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nova Central School District. I would delete it per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD, but I would prefer a redirect because this can be attested. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't redirect it there, since that school district doesn't exist anymore. Maybe the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District instead? TimeEngineer (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and put any relevant information into New World Island and Summerford, Newfoundland and Labrador. There is nothing special to make this into its own article TimeEngineer (talk) 10:01, 28 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) 16:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ozan Özerk

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

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

The article reads like a resume that is based only on primary sources. I wasn't able to find any secondary sources on the subject. In fact, the Turkish version, which apparently had the same sources, was put up for a deletion discussion and deleted after a thorough review of the references. I think the article has also been written by someone closely associated with the subject. Keivan.f^Talk 05:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: from my understanding he founded the Norwegian media company Norsk Ideutvikling and the social-networking site Biip.no, which does give him notability. I agree that the English article is written terribly like a CV, which I've tried to briefly clean up. I can work on it some more. Also, in Norwegian sources his name will appear as "Ozan Øzerk" rather than "Ozan 'Özerk" which can limit search results. Sseevv (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I looked at the sources and only one of the references was a primary source (which has been removed now), the rest were just incorrectly cited by whoever worked on this article (they include articles in notable publications by
Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, Fremover, University of Tromsø). Sseevv (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Any English-language sources? I haven’t been able to find any. Also, founding a network doesn’t make him notable, unless the network itself is of great importance and prominence. I’d suggest we look more into the sources and try to figure out whether those networks themselves are actually notable. Also, as I cannot read Norwegian, my question would be are those sources that you listed (
Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, Fremover, University of Tromsø) merely mentioning his name or are they talking about his work in detail? Until then I wouldn’t entirely reject the possibility of either keeping or deleting it. Keivan.f^Talk 09:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
One cannot measure notability based on English sources - the world is much bigger. These publishers are widely used on Wikipedia, I see no problem here. He was a co-founder of the most successful Norwegian social-media site, and a published medical researcher for the World Health Organization. I'm surprised this is even a debate now - though I did initially agree with your observations on how poorly the article was originally written. Sseevv (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just curious to see whether there are any English sources or not, otherwise it's totally fine to have sources in other languages as long as they are reliable. If he has had a prominent career, then the article could stay. However, the section on his business career needs improvement and is barely sourced, except for the first sentence. I'd be glad if other users were able to provide some insight and perhaps contribute a little bit to both the article and this discussion, especially those who might know Norwegian. Keivan.f^Talk 19:39, 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) 00:48, 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) 15:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time is the charm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One cannot buy notability, nor can it be asserted from a
WP:INHERIT notability from their companies or assets. FalconK (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Also said it in the AfD in the Turkish Wikipedia. There are no reliable sources about the subject. Most of them are related to his companies. Sources only briefly mention his name. Notability is not inherited, so being the co-founder of the most successful Norwegian social-media site doesn't mean anything unless there are also reliable sources that cover the subject in depth.
~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 18:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 20:11, 29 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 21:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Chamwada

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

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

the references in the article doesn't seem enough to pass a stand alone article beside the fact that the draft of this article was previously deleted under discussion check Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alex Chamwada Dtt1^Talk 07:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 07:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 07:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 07:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:45, 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) 15:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This individual seems notable enough to warrant the creation of a Wikipedia page. Maybe needs some
~~WP:PROMO trimmed out but the sources seem to be significant. HarrietsCharriot (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — HarrietsCharriot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

keep It is famous.--
(talk • Contributions) 12:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "It is famous" and "seems notable" - anyone else able to weigh in?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, subject is likely notable, but the current article is promotional and the primary editor appears to be engaged in UPE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sock votes struck. Blablubbs|talk 00:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatantly promotional. Deb (talk) 14:37, 26 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. Consensus is the cleanup by Cunard negates any issues from sockpuppets. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GreenPal

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

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

Bryan M. Clayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article was created by a recently banned sockpuppet a few months before he was banned. It's an advertisement for a lawn service firm, supported by "references" that are either PR, or notices of entry into a market, or about the general topic of similar actually notable firms. A respected editor Cunard has tried to rescue it by removing the worst of the advertising, but I think it is not rescuable, because there are no actually independent reliable sources.( If there were, Cunard would have added them). Thee is also the question of whether we should even try to rescue articles like this. The other articles from this editor have been deleted, and this should be also. It's the only way to stop paid editing in WP, when the paid editing is used to insert promotional articles.
I am also listing the article on the founder of the company. The same reasons apply. It's equally promotional. Some of the refs are different. They're apparent PR insertions in articles about a range of businesses, where his business is used as one of the many examples.
I congratulate the PR agent for their ability to get these mentions and articles placed. But they should have known to stay away from WP. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.

Selected sources with analysis

Lupher, Eric (2018-09-15). "Touted the 'Uber of lawn care,' this app connects people with lawn care services".
ABC Action News. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage
: "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." The article includes negative analysis of GreenPal: "But with every business comes some bad reviews. KMGH did some research and a lot of gripes came from customers who said vendors set up times of arrival and then never show up. Others write about their frustrations of unsatisfactory work."

Van Grove, Jennifer (2018-01-17). "Lawn wars: GreenPal takes on local incumbent in on-demand lawn care". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
The article provides analysis about GreenPal by comparing it to its competitor Lawn Love: "The two services have their differences. GreenPal, for instance, leaves it to up to vendors to determine pricing for jobs while Lawn Love has set rates for services. And Lawn Love handles the customer service side of the equation, whereas GreenPal does not. Even still, the two companies’ purpose of matching homeowners with lawn care pros is the same, and that doesn’t appear to be an Uber-sized business — at least not yet."

Rosenblatt, Lauren (2020-01-02). "Snow removal now as easy as ordering takeout on your phone". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
The article provides analysis about GreenPal by comparing it to its competitor Lawn Love: "Lawn Love doesn’t offer customers multiple bids as GreenPal does, but instead takes over the logistics so the customer doesn’t have to. ... Both Lawn Love and GreenPal can be used to set up seasonal plans. But the on-demand requests might not be that quick because there is still a “pecking order” that must be followed, Mr. Mitlo said."
The article provides analysis by casting doubt on the accuracy of GreenPal's comparison to Uber: "Both companies like to compare their platform to an “Uber for lawn care,” but it could be tricky to replicate the snow removal service in the same instantaneous, on-demand fashion. Contractors pointed to problems with getting from one side of the city to the other in a timely enough fashion to meet the customer’s requests or the added liability of damaging shrubbery or scraping up concrete when they have never seen the property not covered in a blanket of snow."

Isaacs, Abby (2018-08-28). "'Uber for lawn care' app new in Baltimore". WMAR-TV. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
The article includes criticism of GreenPal from a customer:
"I trusted that this service this lawn service would do a great job ... so I went ahead and I submitted payment," Florida customer Maria Alithinos said. "That's my mistake." Alithinos used the app to hire a company in May in Tampa. She paid before she realized what they had actually done. ... She said she tried to get her money back but the company said no. ... Months later, she never got a response. ..."If you’re taking money from a provider or if you taking money from a consumer, you need to have customer service," Alithinos said.

Dixon, Drew (2017-12-06). "GreenPal seeks to be Uber for lawn care in Jacksonville". The Florida Times-Union. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
The article includes analysis from a professor:
Angela Mattia, chairwoman of the Information Management Department at Jacksonville University, said she was unaware of the GreenPal business in Jacksonville. But she’s not surprised the Uber paradigm has spread to other industries. “It’s definitely where the trend is going,” Mattia said. “It’s kind of along the lines of what Angie’s List was a few years ago.” Mattia said there are many other services already operating on the mobile application paradigm. As those apps are getting more sophisticated, Mattia said it’s likely going to be common for those kind of apps to be available for many kinds of manual labor work.

Rubino, Joe (2018-12-14). "Denver home delivery services include urgent medical care, gym on wheels, late-night munchies". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.
The article includes analysis of how GreenPal uses "the application of new tech" to make cutting grass "that much easier":
Like GymGuyz and the in-home personal trainer model, calling a landscaping service out to your home to cut the grass is nothing new. What differentiates these business is the application of new tech to make it that much easier. Nashville, Tenn.-based GreenPal’s twist on the idea is it allows participating lawn care companies to bid on projects posted to the app or website by customers. Then the customers, who have access to company ratings, reviews and prices, pick a winner.

Additional sources

Thurston, Susan (2014-09-15). "GreenPal app lets people hire lawn services". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

Feighan, Maureen (2020-01-16). "Welcome Mat: An Uber for snow removal? Nashville apps offers on demand shoveling". The Detroit News. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

Szaniszlo, Marie (2020-01-07). "'Uber for lawn care' launches on-demand snow removal in Metro Boston". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

Flessner, Dave (2019-05-29). "Nashville-based GreenPal brings lawn service app to Chattanooga". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2019-06-08. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

Ng, Jonathan (2020-08-14). "GreenPal, the 'Uber of lawn care,' launches in Las Vegas". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

Page, DeAsia (2018-07-31). "Get your lawn mowed with this new app that launched in Detroit". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

Hurtibise, Ron (2017-12-01). "GreenPal, the 'Uber for lawn care,' launches in South Florida".
Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original
on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

McGhee, Jamie (2014-03-28). "Nashville's GreenPal is the 'Uber' of lawn care". The Tennessean. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

Hall, Derek (2018-11-30). "App that aims to be 'Uber for lawn care' launches in Phoenix". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

Watts, Micaela A (2019-05-24). "GreenPal: 'Uber of lawn care' service launches in Memphis, here's how it works". The Commercial Appeal. Archived from the original on 2020-10-25. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

Bouffard, Kevin (2017-10-16). "New smartphone app for lawn care called GreenPal launches in Polk". The Ledger. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

Harland, Nicolas (2017-10-16). "GreenPal gains traction with lawn care app". NashvillePost.com. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

Logan, Casey (2018-01-10). "GreenPal lawn mowing app reaches Naples, Fort Myers". Naples Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

Piorkowski, Jeff (2018-07-06). "GreenPal app connects homeowners, lawn care professionals in East Side communities". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2020-12-07. Retrieved 2020-12-07.

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow GreenPal to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/redirect Bryan M. Clayton to GreenPal as Clayton is not independently notable of GreenPal. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GreenPal is neutrally written. If editors consider the article to violate the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, I ask them to explain how so that I can remove any text that violates the policy. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Bryan M. Clayton to GreenPal. The founder is not notable outside of his company. As noted above, there is significant coverage on the company to keep it's page. ~RAM (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep both greenpal and Clayton pages. Both have significant coverage. Just implying that news are all PR generated and congratulating them for using a good PR firm, without providing any evidence or proof is not a justification for deletion. Some of these appear to be respected publications with hard copies, such as Tampa Bay times, Times of San Diego, The Missouri Times, The Courier. Star Tribune. I just don't buy the nominator's argument that these are all PR. Looking at Clayton, he also has coverage in WSJ (twice), NBC news, Entrepreneur, CBS, American Express, etc. Also many of these sources would work for GreePal too, but not used in GreenPal page. I find it hard to believe someone could buy this much press, especially since the writers in many top publications could lose their jobs for accepting fees for writing. I do believe some of that is going on with smaller publications. So based on [[WP:GNG}} Wikipedia policy they both meet notability guidelines. Peter303x (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both, per above. Both
WP:NBIO. There isn't much reason to merge a notable person who is clearly covered by some of America's top reliable sources like the WSJ, NBC, Times of San Diego, and more. Nyangaman4 (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep x2 pages Cunard did a great analysis. Each article IMO stands on it's own through enough citations independent of the other article. The page about GreenPal comps with AirBnB, Uber, DoorDash and other app-style-get-it-immediately technology that is significant, and there is significant coverage in this area. Bryan_M._Clayton page does have a couple shared references, but has significant coverage in very reliable sources that are not shared with the GreenPal page. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 16:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously meets SIGCOV with lots of secondary reliable sources for each. Expect there will be opportunities to improve this subject as time goes on Duncan079 (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cunard's references are besides the point. notability is not the only reason for deletion. The use of WP for advertising is an even stronger reason, one of the fundamental ruules in WP:NOT. I am at a loss for why people think WP should include advertising, or why otherwise good editors should facilitate PR. There's a simple way of telling: any article containing a quote from the founder should be assumed to be PR.. That is not encyclopedic content; of course we can remove it, but the purpose of including it can only be promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment 2' If we had detected the sockpuppettry a few weeks earlier , this would have been a speedy G5. (creation by sockpuppet of banned user) . There are admins who would delete it under G5 nonetheless, on the basis that the difference is only technical, and the sockpuppettry is evident. I consider that a reasonable admin action, and I considered doing it, but decided not to, because I thought the deletion on bringing it here would be obvious enough-- and because, in admin actions, I try to act as conservatively as possible. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My google search makes this look notable. While the article may have started as PR and the original editor may have had questionable motivation, the subject bases notability guidelines Jeepday (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above. Fulfills
WP:BASIC. Pilean (talk) 10:13, 31 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 Mockbuster#Dingo pictures. Missvain (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dingo Pictures

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Dingo Pictures

Articles for deletion/Dingo Pictures (2nd nomination)

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

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

While this revision is a significant improvement over the last time an article on this subject was brought to AfD, we're still far short of meeting
WP:NCORP, as the citations are limited to database entries, youtube videos of dubious reliability and minimal coverage of the studio itself ([42], [43], [44]), and crowdsourced websites ([45]). More reliable sources are used to support claims that are tangential to the subject and do not mention Dingo Pictures or its previous names ([46]) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - If it is decided that an article is not justified, the page ought to be reverted to the redirect which was in place until earlier today, rather than deleted. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or restore redirect. Nothing here or on the German wiki page, suggest this is or ever will be notable. Jeepday (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above.
talk) 19:51, 29 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) 15:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rerum Prussicarum

Rerum Prussicarum (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 makes no sense to create a disambiguation page for book titles that have two words in common like Historia Rerum Prussicarum (which is in itself an unused redirect, for
Historia Rerum Prussicarum in turn links to Caspar Schütz) and Scriptores Rerum Prussicarum. With the same right one could create disamguation pages for Historia, for Scriptores, For Historia Rerum, for Scriptores Rerum, for Prussicarum, for Rerum and so on. Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2
WP:PTMs. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
WP:PTM indeed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:49, 29 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 21:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Garibotto

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

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

Textbook
WP:BLP1E. She's an "influencer" or whatever whose only significant coverage in reliable sources is tied to the Pope's Instagram liking her photos (hilariously, apparently another incident like that happened within the past few days, came up during my BEFORE search). My BEFORE didn't turn up anything else that looks especially notable - plenty of gossip rags and low-quality sites/blogs covering "influencers," but nothing meeting SIGCOV in RS. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Kolma8 (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is a non-entity, with zero notability, as are many of this user's many stub articles. Sorry, GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:56, 29 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) 23:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Benites

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

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

WP:GNG failure. She may have made occasional appearances in a title-winning team but that in itself does not give you inherent notability. Sources found do not cover her in any depth. Best sources were [47], [48] and [49] all of which only mention her once. No active career. Spiderone 14:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about footballer who appeared in the 2017 Liga MX Femenil title match, but who has never played in a fully-pro league and is not the subject of significant coverage in Spanish- or English-language sources (she appears in match reports but nothing that would be in-depth coverage). Jogurney (talk) 21:20, 28 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 21:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Andrews (businessman)

Kevin Andrews (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails GNG - Sources do not constitute notability. Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the subject is not notable. Sources deconstructed:

1 N article about something else that uses the subject as a source

2 N passing mention; the article is about a financial transaction, not him

3 N not independent; information about the subject comes from quotations of him

4 N irrelevant list of patents

5 N passing mention of Kevin in an article not about him

Nothing remains. I don't see anything else out there. FalconK (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All I see is this and some related coverage of the same incident, either in this paper (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) or the Honolulu Advertiser. It's interesting, but I think it falls under BLP1E. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:52, 29 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 Materialscientist (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karena Albers

Karena Albers (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 businessman. Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ruqayya ansari (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:G11. I've just tagged it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:52, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kolma8 (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indulekha (2020 TV series)

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

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

Fails
WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe that it's
WP:TVSERIES that this one needs to meet rather than NFILM Spiderone 11:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

My mistake - I will withdraw this nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:11, 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. Geschichte (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Indian Premier League statistics

2019 Indian Premier League statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

2020 Indian Premier League statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A textbook
WP:NOTSTATS page. There's no context to explain why an indivdual season needs its own list of stats, or why they are important. There's no prose, and just because a stat exists, doesn't mean it's worth noting. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Per nom; excessive statistics without any explanation. All the main points and relevant stats can be adequately summarised in the main articles, and largely already are. wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - anything notable should be summarised on the tournament page. This is unnecessary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are not a stats website, per
WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Human (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate sports statistics website; there are other websites that do this if that's your thing; no need for us to be a mirror of them Spiderone 10:45, 31 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 21:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pandey Muhalla

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

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

Clearly does not meet
WP:GNG, created without sufficient citations. Whatever citations exist seem to have no relation to the text. Prolix 💬 10:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lennart97 (talk) 21:00, 25 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
Mastodon (software)#Forks. Missvain (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Tooter

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

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

Does not meet
WP:SIRS and lacks any worthwhile citations, most of the content that has existed on the page over its life span seems to have been unsourced. Prolix 💬 10:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Prolix 💬 10:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Prolix 💬 10:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a standalone article is not warranted, perhaps merging into
Mastodon (software)#Forks could be an alternative to deletion. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
^(talk) 11:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Not much to Merge, but ok. Prefer delete as lacking independent notability. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 28 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) 15:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of museums in Gabon

List of museums in Gabon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

Dynamic list, but none of the few elements have their own article. The only possible "citation" given is an encyclopedia
talk | contribs) 09:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk | contribs) 09:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk | contribs) 09:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to the category until such time as there's content to add to the list. It's a list-worthy topic though. StarM 14:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC) ETA: changing my !vote to redirect to Culture of Gabon as IP 219 identified below. I don't think there's anything worth merging though due to the red links and a redirect would preserve the edit history . StarM 01:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the said names are notable.
talk) 09:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Concur with Star Mississippi that this is a list-worthy topic. Keep to preserve edit history and redirect for the time being to for example Culture of Gabon. 219.77.116.215 (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Culture of Gabon per anon above me. gidonb (talk) 01:35, 26 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) 08:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasthan United FC

Rajasthan United FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem to meet
WP:GNG with no real coverage in news sources. Passenger pigeon (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Passenger pigeon (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Passenger pigeon (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Passenger pigeon (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot verify that this club even exists (NB not to be confused with
AU Rajasthan FC), let alone is notable. Giant Snowman 09:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - it looks like they play in the Rajasthan State Men's League. I'm not sure if that grants them inherent notability or not. My guess is it doesn't. Spiderone 09:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see evidence of GNG. There is already Draft:Rajasthan United FC so no need to draftify the article and, if it is a notable topic, people can work on the draft version first. Spiderone 18:48, 30 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. Sandstein 21:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FENOX Venture Capital

FENOX Venture Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page should be deleted because all the information are very misleading and inaccurate. As an entrepreneur, I run a startup, so I look for credible VCs. I looked into Fenox Venture Capital and discovered that they are no longer operating. Their website is non-functioning and goes to a 404 page. As a public database, I expect the sources I am receiving are reliable. The page I viewed was false and took away Wikipedia’s credibility. I suggest to remove this page to prevent other entrepreneurs from receiving false information. Taylormarieanderson (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no proper basis for deletion provided by the nominator. Mccapra (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - the fact that they are no longer operating is not a valid reason to delete the article. By that logic we should also delete Woolworths Group and should probably prepare to get rid of Debenhams as well Spiderone 09:47, 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. Closing based on clear, early consensus. Missvain (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boots Anson-Roa

Boots Anson-Roa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This reads like a resumé or cv of a very non-notable person. This article and its subject does not seem to require a standalone article. Perhaps include her name in other articles as appropriate. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure this is a keep. She was an actress for 40-somethign years, and lately seems to be something of a celebrity in the Filipino press. On the face of it she looks notable, but the article needs some work and additional sourcing. Possibly (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable actress in our country. The article, however, needs major fix and addition of more sources. Deleting this won't help. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boots Anson-Rodrigo as the said actress is now married to her second husband.
talk) 08:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment @
WP:COMMONNAME, as she is more commonly known as Boots Anson-Roa. Immediate Google search reveals that too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Nonsensical nomination, anyone with such a long list of film and television credits many of which she has prominent roles would qualify under
WP:BEFORE and lack of knowledge of deletion policy by the nominator (particularly when the editor has only an editing history of less than a week when nominating the article for deletion). Hzh (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Just noticed that the nominator has been blocked for long-term abuse. Time to speedy close this nonsensical nomination from a problem editor. Hzh (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Spongecob Flairpants has not been blocked (yet). There is an SPI open though. Possibly (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes
WP:NACTOR. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, a very notable actress in the Philippines with lots of film credits as well as awards. It is now being edited to include reliable sources. --Jojit (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; she is a notable person in the Philippines --Billie bb (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ludicrous nomination. I just checked the history and the (long) awards section was already present when this was nominated. pburka (talk) 17:25, 28 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. per
(non-admin closure) GRINCHIDICAE🎄 21:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The Train Driver

The Train Driver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I tried to find anything about this play which the article says has "rave reviews." Nothing. This appears to be a non-notable play and does not really need a standalone article. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a play by a very prominent playwright, Athol Fugard. It has been reviewed in The New York Times and The Guardian, among others. I would think that if this article were improved, the result would likely be a "keep". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as @Metropolitan90: says, there are high quality, in-depth sources in the NY times, Independent, Guardian and so on. I have added several to the article, to confirm the performances. For those who enjoy reading theatre reviews, lots of additional material on plot, actors, roles the like can be gleaned from the these sources. Possibly (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it needs improvement and some cleanup, but it's a notable play. StarM 14:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An Athol Fugard play is guaranteed to have coverage. The New York Times and Independent sources now used in the article are excellent. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:24, 25 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. Not counting the nominator, who has been blocked as a sock. Sandstein 21:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadrealista Danas i Ovde

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

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

A local academic journal that had 3 issues around 90 years ago. Non-notable magazine that is admittedly local and not really appropriate for a standalone article. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why this article has been proposed for deletion. This is not an academic journal, but a surrealist artistic magazine. It is not purely of local significance as the Serbian surrealist were one of the first groups to extend surrealism internationally. The fact that the magazine was produced 90 years ago, or that it had three issues are completely irrelevant. It is highly notable: for example, Koča Popović participation with the Serbian Surrealists got him in hot water with the stalinists, who accused him of "Trotskyism", he subsequently became a General in the Yugoslav Partisans and a major Yugoslav politician. It would make more sense to spend time improving articles than making poorly researched suggestions to delete the hard work of fellow editors.Leutha (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on what I saw in a search, I have the sense that this is a notable publication. However I cannot say for certain a I do not read the language (Croatian? Serbian?). Possibly (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As described in the reference which I added, this magazine included first publications of works by
WP:GNG and deletion of this article would be inappropriate. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per AllyD. I added another reference. I had no idea that Serbian surrealism was so active.Dsp13 (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:HEY, thanks to AllyD and Dsp13's improvements. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
WP:NOTINHERITED. That notable people published in this is not enough. What reliable source calls this journal important or significant and/or discusses its influence? Do ping me if you want to reply to me, I am happy to revise my vote but so far I don't see arguments that go beyond INHERITED nor sources that seem to discuss the journal in more than passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The digitised version of issue one has an academic article in both Serbian and English! Leutha (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination makes three claims to non-notability. 1) It's local (It wasn't and that wouldn't matter anyway) 2) it's 90 years old (true, but age is irrelevant) 3) There were only three issues. (I can think of a magazine that has had only two issues, but is notable anyway, The Blind Man). Vexations (talk) 12:56, 25 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 Big Audio Dynamite. Sandstein 21:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Big Audio Dynamite

The Best of Big Audio Dynamite (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 album that can easily be included on the Big Audio Dynamite page or on a discography page. This album does not need its own page and is not the subject of any citations or sources. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spongecob Flairpants (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "budget compilation album" - that says it all. Not notable, and discogs is still not a reliable source. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obscure budget release that came and went with no notice from the reliable media and probably not from the band's fans either. Only appears in basic lists and databases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Audio Dynamite: Barely found anything about the compilation album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Audio Dynamite Missvain (talk) 17:02, 31 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 21:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Sultan Masood Dakik

Sayyid Sultan Masood Dakik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not indicate how subject is notable per
WP:BIO. Being a descendant of Muhammad does not mean there is inherited notability. Google search for the name comes up lacking in significant discussion in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 04:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 04:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not inherited. Not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Obvious IP sockpuppetry

Save: actually I totally understand Sayyid Mir Israfil's points. That is why we should save this article.
Actually we should edit ut so it looks more better instead of directly deleting it.
Yours Sincerely
- Sayyid Assadullah Musavi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D1:CF14:CE88:2467:EB93:E8E0:75FD (talk) 11:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also share the view of my friend Assadullah. To be honest I have right now just created my account, so I can contrubute to this discussion. Sultan Masood Dakik's articke is actually not only because of his ancestry.
He has reached so much in his life and is well known in Afghanistan.
His works in business, charity and politics cannot be ignored.
As I see this article has been trandlated from the German cersion of the page called "Sultan Masood Dakik".
We should edit it and add more on his carreer based on the 13. Articles Sayyid Mir Israfil added(wonderul!).
All in all the sourcing is actually top and I am on Sayyid Mir Israfil's side.
Thank you
Sayyid Ali Reza Rizvi Sadaat
PS: We are all Sayyids in Afghanistan and we see Sultan Masood Dakik and his ancestors from Sayyid Mir Hasan as our supervisors.
Hence we will be honored to let his side be saved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Reza Rizvi Sadaat (talk • contribs) 11:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Save, Save! DO NOT DELETE!:
Honorable Wikipedia community,
My name is Ghulam Hasan and I am from Lahore, Pakistan. I come to see the Wikipedia page and was very happy, but also shocked...
Sayyid Mir Muhammad Jan is very well known in Lahori history. In Lahore we have wells named after him, because he helped so many orphans there.
Me and my family love him and his family very much.
Everytime his grandson Sultan Masood Dakik and his family arrives in Mehmoodabad (named after his ancestor Hazrat Ishaan) we break in tears, out of happiness and joy.
Last year his son Sayyid Raphael came in year 2019 and has visited the Ministry of religious affairs and mayor.
They are all really popular and holy to us and have deserved Wikis.
With sincere and faithful regards
Ghulam Hasan Gurgani
PS: we should add all the articles of Sayyid Mir Israfil to the article. It is too bad to delete the page, when there are so many articles.
1. And against the first commentary, there is so much about Sultan Masood Dakik, when you enter his name in google. https://www.google.com/search?q=sultan+masood+dakik&source=lmns&bih=821&biw=1440&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiT4ebukuntAhUOuqQKHT0wB1UQ_AUoAHoECAEQAA
2. You even see him with the German federal president Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Christian Wulff in a party as it sees. https://www.google.com/search?q=sultan+masood+dakik&sxsrf=ALeKk01hv_t7mHLqH55oEY-QvFoKZymUAg:1608899701778&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigm9C5kuntAhUV6OAKHePhDGAQ_AUoAXoECBAQAw&biw=1440&bih=821
3. There are even documentations in youtube: https://www.google.com/search?q=sultan+masood+dakik&source=lmns&tbm=vid&bih=821&biw=1440&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiw7pzRkuntAhVQtKQKHao4AXYQ_AUoA3oECAEQAw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D1:CF14:CE88:5D59:95E7:F8ED:B4B9 (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well these are all in all also very good arguments of these Western German Mureeds.
They are actually based in the same city, so it is not right to call them socketpuppets.
And eventhough their arguments and my arguments above are not to be ignored.
We are totally right and will prevail.
-Sayyid Mir Israfil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyid Mir Israfil (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited, and the sourcing is not at a level to suggest that
WP:GNG is met. Arguments to keep appear to be based on emotion and are no substitute for actually meeting policies and guidelines. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I give up, delte Sayyid Raphael Dakik and Sayyid Sultan Masood Dakik.
But leave Sayyid Mir Hasan and Sayyid Mir Muhammad Jan, for that is real history mentioned in Tazkare Khanwade Hazrat Ishaan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyid Mir Israfil (talk • contribs) 10:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:NOTGENEOLOGY. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 27 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 21:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Raphael Dakik

Sayyid Raphael Dakik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not indicate how subject is notable per
WP:BIO. Being a descendant of Muhammad does not mean there is inherited notability. Google search for the name comes up lacking in significant discussion in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 04:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 04:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of text, some relevant, some not, by the article's creator.

Maybe, but you should know that Sayyid Raphael is not only a usual descendant of
saints in Pakistan and India. Hence Sayyid Raphael Dakik is to be seen as a young representative of the household of Sayyid Mir Muhammad Jan and Sayyid Mir Jan
, who are very closely related.

Furthermore his carreer as a young leader is not to be ignored, which is another important reason why he has deserved to have a Wikipedia site.

The reason why his ancestry is written in detail is due to the interesting history of his ancestors, for there are so many holy saints and even Askari Sayyids -an actual discussion and research topic in the global Shia Muslim community and the Hawzas in Najaf and Qom- in it, that is definitely of utmost interest and importance for Muslims.

Especially the family of Sayyid Mir Muhammad Jan including Sayyid Sultan Masood Dakik and Sayyid Raphael Dakik are highly respected by thousands of people in Pakistan (especially Lahore as base), Kashmir (especially Srinagar as base) and Afghanistan (especially Mazar Sharif as base). They are the popes of their own followers in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan

They are not one of millions of descendants of
Yousuf Raza Gilani
.

Furthermore they are even
king Zahir Shah
himself!
If you let a person like Reza Pahlavi, Patrick Ali Pahlavi, Dündar Ali Osman have a Wiki, then you are supposed and oblieged to make a Wiki about H.E. Sayyid Sultan Masood Dakik and his son Sayyid Raphael Dakik, assisting him in his missions and having his own businesses and academic career.

They both are the current heads of the family of
King Zahir Shah
himself!

The reason is furthermore that their nobility is vested in their political and charity works, what makes these Wikis far more superior than other royals or nobles. They are strongly connected to the global Elite and do
Lobbyism
for the sake of orphan children and disadvantaged people and not for the sake of money. And that with success!
Isn´t that next to a high genealogical nobility not notable enough?

As business magnates they both are even contributing to CO2-Reduction and revolutionizing oil business with Bio-fuels like Jatropha in cooperation with the House of Saud next to various other projects! They have a high influence on NEOM city!

Furthermore Sultan Masood Dakik is very often the topic in German Media, may it be on more than 10 newspaper articles, TV, internet etc.

Examples (when you just give his name in Google under "news"):
1. https://rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/wesel/der-gute-mensch-aus-afghanistan_aid-21571749
2. https://www.derwesten.de/staedte/nachrichten-aus-wesel-hamminkeln-und-schermbeck/er-hat-ein-herz-fuer-die-menschen-id10314011.html
3. https://rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/wesel/der-mutmacher-im-fluechtlingsheim_aid-21637531
4. https://rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/wesel/weseler-will-weltweit-helfen-c02-zu-senken_aid-21513291
5. https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/pressemitteilung?&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=27426&cHash=5c16a692f64cb108a88cb6b3ef5429cb (This Elitarian German University literally calls him "His Excellence"!)
6. https://www.proplanta.de/agrar-nachrichten/wissenschaft/jatropha-speichert-kohlendioxid-und-liefert-bio-kerosin_article1429878904.html
7. https://rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/wesel/syrer-sehen-in-wesel-ihre-zukunft_aid-21739989
8. https://rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/wesel/schoenes-fest-aber-sorgen-um-zustrom_aid-21917923
9. https://rp-online.de/nrw/panorama/diese-menschen-helfen-fluechtlingen_bid-9528125
10. http://www.rp-online.de/nrw/panorama/fluechtlinge-die-willkommenskultur-am-rhein-aid-1.5279773
11. http://www.rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/wesel/asylbewerber-kehrt-freiwillig-zurueck-aid-1.5374955
12. http://www.rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/wesel/bruener-hilft-afghanischer-journalistin-aid-1.5620441
13. https://www.mz-web.de/sangerhausen/koeniglicher-besuch-in-sangerhausen-sultan-masood-dakik-will-fluechtlingen-helfen-23472304
and many more articles. I have overdriven with 13 articles so you can see that this person is a popular business man, revolutionizing oil business and accelerating renewable energy in the Middle East. He is also greatly known for his charity initiatives.

Sultan Masood Dakik and Sayyid Raphael Dakik all in all are no "fake sufi saints" and nobodies, calling themselves "Lord" like Ahmed Amiruddin, charged because of sexual assault. Ahmed Amiruddin should be deleted and not His honorable Excellence Sultan Masood Dakik, highly respected by everyone. If such a sexual criminal and scammer like Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin has a Wikipedia site and you want to delete Sultan Masood Dakik and his son, that is what they call:

Intellectual Vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyid Mir Israfil (talk • contribs) 06:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Besides concerning Sultan Masood Dakik, we have just translated one to one the German version of his Wiki. And this was accepted!
discospinster, Ahmed Amiruddin should be deleted, but not the right honorable excellence Sayyid Sultan Masood Dakik
This is so unjust. I have given my arguments in the discussion and you are not able to say anything against it.
If you put such a disresepctful template you should think 10 times before or edit to improve by yourselves freely, instead of exposing this article to such a shameful template.
Sayyid Mir Israfil
I want everyone to stop acts of vandalism!
Sayyid Mir Israfil If you have anything to contribute than tell in the discussion page with arguments. Give your arguments against mine, surely you cannot bring forward any argument against us!. -Sayyid Mir Israfil
It is very offensive to edit around at my talking page and articles without having given ANY arguments against mine in the deletion discussion, which is already decided for our sake, for you AGAIN cannot bring ANY Arguments against us! -Sayyid Mir Israfil
If you have no arguments then STOP vandalizing around! -Sayyid Mir Israfil

Comment: the article's creator has been temporarily blocked for repeatedly removing the AFD template from the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent sourcing to meet
WP:GNG. As the nom points out, notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Obvious IP sockpuppetry

Save: actually I think that this article should also stay.
We can maybe shorten the problematic passages. But all in all it should stay.
Yours sincerely
- Sayyid Assadullah Musavi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D1:CF14:CE88:2467:EB93:E8E0:75FD (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article should stay snd be saved. Even when there is only one sentence, it should be saved, because he is a very young leader with a bright furture.
Ali Reza Rizvi Sadaat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Reza Rizvi Sadaat (talk • contribs) 12:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Save, Save! DO NOT DELETE!:
Honorable Wikipedia community,
My name is Ghulam Hasan and I am from Lahore, Pakistan. I come to see the Wikipedia page and was very happy, but also shocked...
Sayyid Mir Muhammad Jan is very well known in Lahori history. In Lahore we have wells named after him, because he helped so many orphans there.
Sayyid Raphael also digged new wells in Pakistan in 2019 in the name of his great-grandfather.
Me and my family love Shah Raphael Ji and his family very much.
Everytime his father he and his father Sultan Masood Dakik and his family arrive in Mehmoodabad (named after his ancestor Hazrat Ishaan) we break in tears out of happiness and joy.
Last year Shah Raphael Ji came in year 2019 and has visited the Ministry of religious affairs and mayor. He has such a good network in his young age.
They are all really popular and holy to us and have deserved Wikis.
With sincere and faithful regards
Ghulam Hasan Gurgani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D1:CF14:CE88:5D59:95E7:F8ED:B4B9 (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well these are all in all also very good arguments of these Western German Mureeds.
They are actually based in the same city, so it is not right to call them socketpuppets.
And eventhough their arguments and my arguments above are not to be ignored.
We are totally right and will prevail.
-Sayyid Mir Israfil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyid Mir Israfil (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited, and the sourcing is not at a level to suggest that
WP:GNG is met. Arguments to keep appear to be based on emotion and are no substitute for actually meeting policies and guidelines. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Same appeals to the arguments of Kinu, which are not based on objective measures but an enmity towards me and my family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyid Mir Israfil (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I give up, delte Sayyid Raphael Dakik and Sayyid Sultan Masood Dakik.
But leave Sayyid Mir Hasan and Sayyid Mir Muhammad Jan, for that is real history mentioned in Tazkare Khanwade Hazrat Ishaan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyid Mir Israfil (talk • contribs) 10:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:NOTGENEOLOGY. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 26 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) 06:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aly Baig

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

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

Easily fails
WP:NMUSIC. No source that focuses on article subject (just passing mentions at best) draft already exists so AFD is the only option at this point. Ravensfire (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Not even sure some of the sources are "real", looking like user-written websites. All passing coverage is also in relation to one song (which doesn't have an article and of which the subject is not primary musician), so effectively BLP1E anyway even if the sources were up to scratch or gave more than a brief shout out. Kingsif (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable 17-year-old musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 29 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) 06:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga Games Database

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Amiga Games Database

Articles for deletion/Amiga Games Database (2nd nomination)

Amiga Games Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This was nominated years ago for being non-notable and I would agree that this is non-notable even now. GamerPro64 03:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 03:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 03:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow. A highly debatable "no consensus" 14 years ago, and 14 years later we have the same thing once again. How this slipped through the cracks is beyond me. In any regard,
WP:CSD#A7-worthy. It's that bad. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I did flair it under A7 but you are not allowed to speedy delete articles that have already been up for AfD. GamerPro64 04:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and the "celebrity reviewer" statement could be construed as a potentially
WP:CCOS. I wouldn't have been the one to delete it if it did qualify because of that, but it's along those lines :) Red Phoenix ^talk 04:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: From the middle 1990s to the early 2010s, AGDB was pretty much the definite unofficial central database for reviews for Amiga games. But it's been almost a decade, and the entire site doesn't seem to exist any more. JIP | Talk 05:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No way does this pass
WP:N. It's a non-notable fansite. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 14:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Red Phoenix's comment. It's just another fansite and there are dozens of fansites on Internet. Non-notable fan project. --
talk) 09:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment There certainly is not broad enough coverage of this website in reliable sources for a stand-alone article. I found a short info in Amiga Format 117 (December 1998, p. 98; offline version was included on the magazine´s cover CD), which should be enough for a mention in another article (maybe with a redirect?). However, I don´t see a clear redirect target here. Pavlor (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, this was pretty well known when it still existed. But as it seems to be long gone, there is probably no need for a separate article any more. It can be mentioned for example on the main Amiga article. JIP | Talk 13:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Red Phoenix and Namcokid. Whether or not a mention could be added somewhere else should not be part of this discussion. IceWelder [✉] 15:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, proposing alternative(s) to deletion is an integral part of any deletion discussion: "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. [...] Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Pavlor (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pavlor: How much is in the offline source you found? What does it say? A passing mention acknowledging its existence as a fan site is probably not enough for a passing mention in the Amiga article if it’s just one source. A more detailed section, like say, a paragraph talking about the site, could make a passing mention worthwhile. Unless there are more sources that mention the site, though, it doesn’t sound like a redirect is necessary at this point. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Small paragraph only (more like a passing mention: "New websites on the CD this month include Digital Images, the makers of Space Station 3000, and the website for the Amiga Games Database. This is a collection of game reviews from Amiga users all over the world, including a few celebrity reviews from David Braben, Paul Burkey and more."), there is also a similar coverage in CU Amiga magazine (July 1998). I don´t like cluttering the main Amiga article with rather trivial informations (which this webpage certainly is), so if there is no other redirect target, I don´t see other viable outcome than deletion. Pavlor (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that looks like a trivial mention to me. Probably not enough to even warrant a passing mention at this point. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:12, 29 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 Hansen Clarke#Electoral history. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Hansen Clarke

Electoral history of Hansen Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

Highly unnecessary
talk 02:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 03:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 03:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 03:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 03:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/redirect to
WP:BOLD merge would have been fine here. Reywas92^Talk 09:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge back into parent article Agricolae (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into parent article. "Electoral history of X" articles are not routinely done for just every politician who exists — they're permitted for heads of state or government (presidents, prime ministers) or other extremely long-serving figures whose articles need spinouts for size management purposes, but below that level a politician's electoral history is addressed in the biographical article rather than being spun off as a subpage. Hansen Clarke's
WP:BLP is not long enough to need the spinoff, however. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge back but prune. I assume we have articles on the various elections. It should be sufficient to have a simple list of the elections in which he participated (linking to the election article), with a result and brief details. Election results boxes take up a lot of space and unbalance bio-articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on Hansen Clarke. If we are going to create electoral histories for every person who ever served in the US house, which is what this one existing would require since Clarke only served one term, we are going to create lots of unneeded articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Bearcat's reasoning, but no redirect, more per JPL's reasoning (bad precedent - those thousands of articles that don't need this FORK also don't need an indexing redirect). 174.254.193.249 (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On leaving a redirect after merging, the purpose is not to create an indexing entry but to maintain attribution edit history per our CC BY-SA 3.0 License. See {{R from merge}}. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 16:54, 30 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.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Priya Ramani

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

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

Doesn't seem notable per
WP:NOTNEWS applies for Sexual Harassment Allegation section. — Amkgp 💬 15:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 15:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the accusation of sexual harrassment against someone else brought by Ramani is not enough to make Ramani notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the page creator, I want to note that the subject meets notability which is why her allegations meet
WP:PERSISTENCE. The 2018 events are covered in NYT, CNN, and BBC. Moreover, I found a 2002 reference to her as well ^[1] AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete She filed a defamation case; however that is not a notability criteria. Not that much notable journalist, too. Dwain09877 (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Priya Ramani did not file a defamation case.AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/business/romance-in-cosmo-s-world-is-translated-in-many-ways.html

Keep sustained coverage and interviews re Metoo etc seems to show that she is an activist in the area, not participant in a single event. Artw (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 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) 01:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a "sour grapes" article; if she's notable as a journalist, I'm not seeing it here. Being sexually harassed is neither here nor there in establishing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet
Me Too movement (India) (altho this could be expanded). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, including per
WP:LASTING. Beccaynr (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

With Ramani's Vogue piece added to the article, and more information from the references, per
WP:JOURNALIST that there is a basis for "originating a significant new concept" in the case based on Ramani's journalism, due to the arguments made by her Senior Advocate about freedom of speech and expression, and democracy. Beccaynr (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given substantial improvement done by the last keep !voter, I'm relisting for a third time. Note:I had previously closed as delete until asked about it by that editor on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reorganized and made substantial additions to the article to address concerns about notability raised above, and to support
WP:CREATIVE project that she has co-created, which has generated coverage from a variety of news sources. I've currently added the BBC, Bloomberg's Quint, and The Hindustan Times reports on her new project, but expect that there is more available because it appears to be "a significant new concept." Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep based on the substantial improvements recently made and the addition of independent, reliable sources to establish notability. It seems to me that the the sexual harassment allegation and ensuing defamation litigation involving a former high government official is far more than a
WP:BLP1E, but rather should be viewed in the context of her writings and ongoing activism about workplace sexual harassment. JGHowes ^talk 14:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Seeing that there is now enough coverage in reliable sources, the subject meets GNG. I also don't think
WP:1E is a problem since reliable sources exist for her activism before and after the M. J. Akbar case. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2021 (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) 05:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Thompson (reporter)

Brian Thompson (reporter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Television reporter, seems to fail
WP:JOURNALIST. Not to be confused with Brian Thomson (journalist). Possibly (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A more or less ordinary local TV journalist. Btw, the article's claim that he won an Emmy is false: he won a New York Emmy in 2005 ([50]), and was only nominated for an unqualified Emmy. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local level broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 29 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) 05:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Design Wales

Design Wales (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 organisation in Wales. Best two sources: [51] uses a quote from the org, not about the org, [52] looks like a press release. Search for significant independent reliable sources doesn't turn up anything. Major contributor was associated with the organization. [53] - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, fails
WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I tried to clean this up, but a search for sources was no help. The overall tone of the article is that of a promotional brochure; the article could be confused for the front page of the organization's web site. Possibly (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the nominator's rationale. I couldn't find anything else online in reliable secondary sources that talks about Design Wales. Sionk (talk) 15:03, 26 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) 05:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

England Lions cricket team in United Arab Emirates in 2016–17

England Lions cricket team in United Arab Emirates in 2016–17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article fails
WP:GNG as this is from a second tier tour not the first tier that it should pass GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per my comments at a similar AfD from yesterday. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this had more prose and more sources I'd consider it's standalone notability. As it is I don't think I could justify an article on what is a B team tour. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:35, 26 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) 05:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

England Lions cricket team against Pakistan A in the UAE in 2015–16

England Lions cricket team against Pakistan A in the UAE in 2015–16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article fails
WP:NCRIC as it's not a top tier tour. HawkAussie (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per my comments at a similar AfD from yesterday. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this had prose and suitable sourcing I'd consider it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:36, 26 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) 05:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh A cricket team in India in 2015–16

Bangladesh A cricket team in India in 2015–16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article fails
WP:CRIN as the tour wasn't the senior tour but instead an Bangladesh-A team which is the second team to the main team. HawkAussie (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per my comments at a similar AfD from yesterday. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous consensus on these types of articles Spiderone 09:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there is quite a lot of coverage of individual matches, but I don't really see a summary of the tour. If there were one in Wisden, for example, I'd reconsider. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:38, 26 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_December_24&oldid=997549037"

[1] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/business/romance-in-cosmo-s-world-is-translated-in-many-ways.html

[1]