Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 24	December 26 >

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. Sandstein 11:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krutzjass

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

This article was created in 2005 by an unregistered editor, but has never been sourced. I can find no game called Krutzjass in the literature or online, except for circular references. The article is full of contradictions. The image is clearly wrong since it only portrays 3 people, two of whom are playing cards, yet Krutzjass is claimed to be a four-player game. Neither can it be a Swiss-German game since they play

Kaiserjass. I thought it could be referring to Kreuzjass which is the most popular form of Jass in Switzerland, but again that's played with 36 cards, not 2x24 cards. In any case, Kreuzjass is already described at Jass. And if it's a Dutch game, as the infobox suggests, it is not mentioned in the list of games from the Netherlands at pagat.com and there appears to be no other record of it online and Google Books only throws up books using Wiki articles. This should have been consigned to the dustbin long ago. Bermicourt (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any evidence of this game's existence either. Interestingly, this could be Wikipedia's longest extant hoax article! Lennart97 (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Krutzjass, no sourcing found and clearly a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this is a hoax (does sound a bit like a cross of Jass and Doppelkopf? Plausible enough to exist in oral family tradition, which would also explain why "Weise" is misspelled as "Wiese"). I could find a couple of card sets online "for Schafkopf and Krutzjass", which is odd since Schafkopf is usually played with 32 cards. But overall, I agree with Bermicourt's assessment of "no evidence in reliable sources" (and of course Bermicourt is our local expert for card games of this type). Delete. —Kusma (t·c) 17:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some people do play Jass with 2x24 cards: [1], which supports this not being a hoax. —Kusma (t·c) 17:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the contradictions in the present article were introduced with the infobox in this edit and were not present originally. —Kusma (t·c) 21:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by a Canadian IP, which at least does not contradict the theory that this is a second- or third-hand account of the house rules of an extant Jass variant brought to Canada by Swiss immigrants at some point in the past. —Kusma (t·c) 21:48, 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 Withdrawn. No support, will convert to disambiguation page as suggested.

(non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Subdistrict

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

Delete — This was created out of whole cloth by banned User:Tobias Conradi and maintained by several sockpuppets (TurkChan, Androox) to make it appear valid edits. No reliable source has been located, although it has been tagged for over 18 months. It was originally tagged in 2009. It was part of a series (country subdivision, subregion, etc.) None of the countries listed actually call these "subdistrict", although in one case that would be a reasonable translation. It would be better to use the correct name in each article.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Allen Simpson, in which case is "subdistrict" a reasonable translation? – Uanfala (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor, "Portuguese word subdistrito." But it wasn't in the native language, and was replaced in 2014 by something translated as "administrative post". As I'd mentioned above, this whole "sub-" naming scheme was imagined circa 2006 by one repeatedly banned user who apparently thought everything was rigidly related to Europe (specifically German), trying to setup equivalent leveled hierarchies between cultures. Bad idea.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's also used, for example, for

kelurahans of Indonesia. I don't know if all these entities make up any sort of coherent encyclopedic topic (I'd be surprised if they do), but the English word "subdistrict" has certainly been used for them. At the very least, there would need to be a disambiguation page at this title. – Uanfala (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

With pruning, it might work well as a disambiguation page. Then we wouldn't need to worry here about references. If that is your preferred result, I'll withdraw and make it a disambiguation page.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a disambiguation page will make sense, but I'd prefer to see the discussion open for a while – people may come up with alternative proposals. And we still have for example the article District, which doesn't seem to have trouble standing on its own. – Uanfala (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

District is just a generic term in English, so we're bound to have a page of some kind. There's a separate disambiguation page. It can overlap other administrative units. It can be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level. I'd remove those that have no governing body, though. There's a lot of handwaving there. But at least there are some sources for half the entries!
William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:22, 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. Geschichte (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raybak Abdesselem

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

Sourcing does not meet

WP:NATHLETE. Previously nominated for PROD by Onel5969, dePROD by initial editor CGOV with the comment Passing WP:Athletes. However, as the subject appears to have only won awards in youth-level championships, my understanding is that this falls short of the SNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - accomplished junior athlete, but meets neither
WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - If you look closely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Gymnastics he is passing the notability, Artistic gymnasts are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below he is passing the notability point 1 and 2 but for junior according to you passing point 2 and point 3 so he is deemed notable. and i asked
Hamoun_Derafshipour Bahman_Asgari

Comment - he's not a gymnast. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deleted on french wikipedia (he's a french athlete) : does not meet our criteria there (won only as a junior). And a lot a sock-puppets are trying to recreate and recreate again the article. Cédric Boissière (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not the one who created first or edited in french wikipedia nor i am a sock puppet, the sock puppets accounts are banned.
talk) 14:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
WP:NATHLETE and Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability#Martial artists. --John B123 (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete All of his success has come as a junior competitor, which has never been considered sufficient to show martial arts notability. All of the references are either routine reporting of sports results or about his upcoming youth competitions.
WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 19:41, 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.

(non-admin closure) JW 1961 Talk 21:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Death of Yuri Gagarin

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

Good faith article creation, but there is actually much more information in the "Death" section of Yuri Gagarin main article, I can't see the need for a stand alone stub unless it were to be greatly expanded. Merge not really feasible as of now as nothing to add from here JW 1961 Talk 20:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseywales1961: I am expanding it right now, translating from Greek and planning to add content from the main article and Russian wiki later. NikosLikomitros (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I hope it works out well for you so, I will ask someone to close this request when the article is expanded a bit. Best wishes JW 1961 Talk 21:03, 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

(non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Anwar Ali (Kalat cricketer)

)

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

No coverage found. Fails

WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oy vey. When will this end? This is becoming a witch hunt against myself, Lugnuts, AA, and 02blythed. Those of us who, surprise surprise, are putting in the legwork regarding article creation. How are people randomly happening upon these articles? You do realize there are other articles in Category:Kalat cricketers too? Seems suspicious that you'd stumble upon this one and this one alone. Just get rid of them all. Delete facts for the sake of deleting facts. Better still, expand articles that need expansion, such as the dozens of Test and ODI cricketers that are basically naught but infoboxes. Dozens of them still have no references at all, let alone references to CI and CA alone. Bobo. 20:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bobo192: Yep, something is wrong with this editor. He is constantly removing a file I uploaded from a article without any explanations. Human (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue at hand here. With all the best will in the world, there are more fundamental issues than this. Bobo . 06:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CRIN.CreativeNorth (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

At best, this thread is unseemly. See

WP:ASPERSIONS. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Wjemather: Sorry for this. I apologise for acting in bad faith. Thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Sattar Bhagat. In all cases the only cricket matches we have any idea about them ever playing are the match(es) they played for Kalat. Inevitably, one of the two we don't see to have an article on (Nasir Valika) played 138 first-class matches... Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

As long as this list is complete. The whole point of the irony of this situation is that I intentionally didn't write articles on the players with seven hundred million appearances as they would probably have been more notable for their achievements with other clubs. As you say, it's ironic in these situations how the AfD addicts only happen upon a single article when there are millions available. Almost suspicious... Bobo . 22:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is now - could you check it for me? If it is I'll take a look at developing things little more. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. It's late and I may have missed something but I think it's all there. Bobo . 23:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll get on to it whilst I listen to the commentary from NZ... Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird how people have gone from, "No Bobo, it's not necessary to have List of X cricketers lists" to making us say, "These are necessary". I don't mean you, BST. Bobo . 23:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm losing touch - the list is done though. Found one more. Naturally the one who played 8 ODIs... Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better to lose touch than to lose interest... Bobo . 00:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or weak redirect to Kalat cricket team. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for domestic cricketers and by consensus is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met. The only sources we have are databases which do not establish notability per SPORTCRIT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total failure of GNG, which we really should apply to all these rubbish cricket articles and clear out a whole bunch.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I supposed to take it personal that you take every one of mine and others' articles containing purely facts "rubbish"? What would you rather see? How would you react if I called every single one of your articles which has been deleted via AfD "rubbish"? Precisely. I never would because it constitutes a personal attack and I would be significantly reprimanded. Bobo . 11:28, 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. Sandstein 11:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kenya ODI wicket-keepers

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

Per

WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I am also nominating the following related lists for similar reason:

Thanks. Störm (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are similar lists for all the other teams. Looking through them all, they have the same issue - a data list with no prose and/or context behind it. Based on their current state, I'd support deletion for all of them, including this one. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, I've nominated other lists. Please update your vote. Störm (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - yes delete all. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all similar articles - agree with Lugnuts. I'd be happy to bundle this cluster of articles and delete eh lot of them - OR, listcruft and so many other issues. I thought we'd gotten rid of these a while back - perhaps those were the Test ones? Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; per nom, these lists are nothing more than excessive unexplained statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:05, 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 11:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forced Cranial Removal

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

Non-notable album. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another non-notable compilation album by Soul Crusher. Again, I am surprised this hasn't been deleted or at least tagged for notability yet. But I tagged it and I also nominate it for Afd, so here we go. The only thing that might at least establish some notability is the fact that this was released on a label that has its own article - although the sourcing isn't great on that article either. The vast majority of Soul Crusher's compilation albums are released on unknown, underground labels, so it's a bit refreshing to see a label which has its own article. Anyways, the sourcing is the same old junk: blank Allmusic page (track listing + user reviews), blogs/unreliable looking sites, a catalog of albums, a discogs page and the album booklet. I can't comprehend why Soul Crusher thinks these are acceptable sources, and can't comprehend why did he thought writing articles on all of these non-notable albums and bands was a great idea. It seems to me like he was a newcomer who didn't bother to read the rules of WP and he opted to do things on his own. No wonder he got indeffed. We are still under the weight of these articles tho, as I have a suspicion that there are many more, and this is just the beginning like I said at a previous Afd. So, to keep it short: just another non-notable album. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the compilation album. ASTIG😎 _{(HAPPY NEW YEAR!)} 17:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has some sources but they are either empty database entries (even the AllMusic page) or basic statements on the album's existence. Unlike some other non-notable compilations recently tracked down by GhostDestroyer, this one happens to include notable bands. Each of their articles can very briefly list their appearance on this comp. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the only thing that establishes at least some notability is the fact that this comp has notable bands, and it was released on a notable label. I still think it's not notable on its own though. This info can be included in the bands' and the label's article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to meet either
WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:22, 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. Sandstein 22:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elham Nami

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

The provided sources don't add up to

WP:ANYBIO. Nominated for PROD by Onel5969, dePROD by an IP without improvement or comment. I wasn't able to find anything better than mere mentions online, but an editor with Persian proficiency may have better luck. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - beat me to it. Not enough in-depth coverage to pass
WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep All sources are correct and confirm the article! does pass
WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR A.ghadr (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Please can you indicate which sources show a passing of GNG? Spiderone 17:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to pass any reasonable expectation of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed tot enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:31, 1 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 merge to Aloha Stadium#Expansion and improvements. Sandstein 22:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Aloha Stadium

)

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aloha_Stadium#Expansion_and_improvements until such time as there's enough information in reliable sources from which to build a standalone article. So many construction delays, it's too soon for this to be a separate article. StarM 22:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Aloha_Stadium#Expansion_and_improvements, per Star Mississippi. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:05, 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Buhr

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

Promotional BLP of a man who runs a leadership consultancy, sourced to his own website and other unreliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely promotional, not a single independent, reliable source. Vexations (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanity page. No
WP:RS cover him that I can find, even in German. FalconK (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable writer and speaker. This is the combination where we see the most common promotional puff pieces.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 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. The proposed sources have remained uncontested. Sandstein 22:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Profezia

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

Did not find any sources to show its notability. Looks to not be notable enough for its own page. GamerPro64 17:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 17:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I went looking and found some print sources: Discussed in this book on the Italian video game industry; feature on the game in Player.it; featured multiple times in Computer+Videogiochi, the Italian edition of Computer and Video Games ([2][3][4]), reviewed by the Italian Amiga Magazine, discussed in Italian magazine K, mentioned in dev interview in The Games Machine. Archive.org also indicated that it was featured in Edge, but the actual magazine was unavailable and I could not tell what issue it was in.--Alexandra^IDV 13:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alexandra. The developer was significant in Italy at the time and the sources Alexandra's already uncovered are just the beginning of what will be available in foreign languages. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:34, 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Philippine TV ratings

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

Fails

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also incomplete and empty statistics. Chompy Ace 16:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 16:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 16:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 16:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Empty article, and
chatter) 21:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. — Emperork 🐋🐰 13:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of TV ratings.
WP:NOTEVERYTHING // Timothy :: talk 05:13, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Philippine TV ratings

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

Fails

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also incomplete and empty statistics. Chompy Ace 16:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 16:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 16:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 16:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Empty article, and
chatter) 21:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. — Emperork 🐋🐰 13:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of TV ratings.
WP:NOTEVERYTHING // Timothy :: talk 05:15, 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 Speedy close per

WP:SNOW, not a deletion discussion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Women in chess

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

I nominate the article, not for deletion, but for an outcome of Draftify per

CapnZapp (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

CapnZapp (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

CapnZapp (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

CapnZapp (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

CapnZapp (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep per
WP:SOFIXIT — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Clearly a notable topic, current poor state of the article is irrelevant. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why not place maintenance tags on the article for "under construction" or "clean up" instead? Subject obviously passes GNG. Just because the article is not in great shape at this time is not a reason to delete or even draftify. There are lots of good sources that were posted to the article talk. And I imagine there is lots of interest in the subject. Netherzone (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gimme a break. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I felt the article was in such bad state, with content basically just pilfered from elsewhere on Wikipedia, that nominating the article for draftifying was the only conscionable move to make, sending the "not cool" signal to the contributors. (I get the impression none of you have even read

CapnZapp (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

CapnZapp: I read the talk page (as mentioned above), what stood out to me was I saw all of the great sources Bluerasberry added there. I'm guessing that in time they will be added to the article. Netherzone (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep AfD is not cleanup. To the more specific concerns raised, it's worth noting that repeating content from other pages isn't necessarily a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with overview-type articles that consist of short-ish sections with "Main article" or "For details, see" notices. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Retaliatory noms based on current pop culture or events someone can't stand (i.e.
chatter) 21:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrecks

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

An article on

musical notability criteria. The first reference states that the band exists. We knew that. The second reference states that the album exists. We knew that. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I found three pieces on Billboard's website, but I'm not convinced they're enough to satisfy GNG. There's a short bio at AllMusic and only one of their works is listed there, and it has no review or rating. When doing a Google search, there is nothing else present on the first five pages. As I was cleaning the article up I was thinking delete and salt, but not sure if salting is needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is a tricky one. There's lots of coverage out there, but when the reprinted press releases, fansites masquerading as magazines, student newspapers, event announcements, and brief mentions are stripped out, there isn't much left. The best I found that haven't already been identified are: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. --Michig (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Billboard piece referenced in the article is significant coverage in a reliable source together with coverage in AllMusic and Altpress and others identified above for a pass of
WP:NMUSIC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully consensus can be reached in the next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs some improvements but with the Billboard pieces and other sources found this article meets
WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - whilst there are a lot of junk sources in the article, as others have mentioned, the Billboard one, along with a few others, is enough Spiderone 11:34, 1 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. Sandstein 22:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kilgore Books & Comics

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

Was deleted back in 2009, while there is new sourcing since then, still not enough sourcing however to pass

WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell this lacks the detailed references about it needs to be notable. Things are unfortunately made more difficult by the fact that most of the sources are from one news outlet. Plus, some references are mainly about the bookstore which is supposedly independent from the publishing outfit, and notability isn't inherited. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty promotional and sources are local/unindependent in nature. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:28, 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 redirect to Erez Safar. Sandstein 11:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shemspeed

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

This seems to be a long way from meeting the notability requirements of

WP:CORP. I can only find tiny mentions e.g. [11] [12] [13]. I suggest we redirect to Erez Safar. SmartSE (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I took the liberty to improve this article a little and added more sources. The fact that several of their artists have their own Wikipedia page, that have qualified and not been deleted, indirectly should have some value of notability. There are also several well known publications in the sources. Some sources are about the Festival they run, but since the Festival is part of the company, that means the coverage is about them as well.Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a tough one to judge and requires a thorough look at the sources. The criteria used to judge notability comes down to
WP:ORGCRIT. The references talk in-depth about the founder and the Sephardic Music Festival. Both appear to be notable based on the references but the references do not meet WP:ORGCRIT when it comes to the label. Yes, it is mentioned with the founder and the festival, but there is nothing in-depth about the label itself. I would say delete or redirect to Erez Safar.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Erez Safar or delete as a second choice. I think this is a fairly clear-cut case, in fact. The provided sources mostly only mention Shemspeed in passing, and a summary BEFORE search also revealed no notability sources (i.e. independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject). Notability is not inherited, and the fact that affiliates of the subject are notable does not make the subject notable. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spudlace (talk) 13:11, 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. Sandstein 22:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inez Melson

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

Lots of mentions, as you might expect of someone in the sphere of a star of Monroe's caliber. But not enough in-depth coverage of them specifically to pass

WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a financial advisor to a very famous person is not enough to make one notable, Melson is not The Colonel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She doesn't
WP:INHERIT notability from Marilyn Monroe. Anything that should be said about her in the context of her work could probably be said there, but I'm not seeing anything in this article worth merging. FalconK (talk) 01:39, 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of country subdivisions

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

This is a very short List of Lists page, consisting entirely of 4 list links, followed by a template that contains the same 4 list links. All links to this page are via the same template. Incestuous. Do we often have these navigation of navigation placeholder pages?

Also, the name of the page matches a previous AfD in 2011 that resulted in a redirect to the properly named page. So we could rename this page, but I'm not certain this page is worth saving. We could simply delete it, and remove the link to it from the template. Poof!
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 12:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 12:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know, it is rather short and vague, but it is still a good article for navigation sake. Weak Keep. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No good for navigation. As I mentioned, it is only accessible from the template, and that already has the navigation links. Just a sort of anchor page.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I suppose I will change to Weak Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't do anything that Category:Lists of country subdivisions doesn't, and is far less complete. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories and Templates can't replace mainspace pages in term of helpfulness to an average reader.
talk) 19:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: This is a See also section which has been made into an article. It doesn't meet LISTN or AOAL. // Timothy :: talk 09:38, 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. Steve Smith (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Thanks, You?

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

No significant independent coverage in reliable sources. It was nominated for awards at festivals, but did not win any, and I can't find any actual prose reviews of the film. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nominated for a bunch of obscure "local film festival" awards. No meaningful in-depth coverage. Even the plot summary is very vague: "In the aftermath of an attack, Amy is left voiceless, trapped in a whirlwind of incompetence. She must find a way to confront what has happened, in order to save what matters to her most." It mentions "an attack" and "what has happened" to save "what matters." Why not any actual details as to what those are? Scrooge200 (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was one of the films of the "2020 Semaine de la Critique label" [[14]]. Also Cannes Critics’ Week reveals 2020 label selection as a short [[15]]. Kolma8 (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from what I can tell this didn't win anything it was nominated for and I don't think there's anything else that would make it notable. Definitely the references in the article do not pass
WP:GNG due to only being brief mentions or dead links. There wasn't anything else when I looked either. Let alone multiple in-depth reviews of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass
WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was result. Steve Smith (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Steve Smith (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bab (gateway)

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

As mentioned on the talk page there earlier, this topic is simply the Arabic word for

content fork. For comparison, even specialized encyclopedias like The Grove encyclopedia of Islamic art and architecture and Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam do not have separate entries for "bab" or "gate". In short: any differences in the form or function of gates across different regions can be covered either at the gate page or other relevant architecture topics like Islamic architecture. There is already an appropriate page on Wiktionary for the word "bab" itself. The current article mentions the word's function in Shi'a Islam, but this already has its own relevant pages such as Bab (Shia Islam)

.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 01:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly neither an encyclopedic article or legit disambiguation page. Geschichte (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wholly uncited for years. Nom's rationale is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 1 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Steer

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

Fails

WP:REFBOMBing of the article with a couple of books that aren't about her. These were more WP:acronyms than I am linguistically comfortable with, but you get the picture... Geschichte (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 10:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 10:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 10:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 10:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - internet-era player with not one news article where she is the main subject, fails
WP:GNG Spiderone 21:35, 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 no consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ennodius

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

This brief and awkward article (created by a now-banned user) is about a man who was serving as governor of the Roman province of Africa in AD 395. The content consists almost entirely of speculation on genealogy, and the sole author cited as a source does not seem to meet

Avilich (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 02:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 02:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 02:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 02:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete.
WP:RS issues and should be deleted unless someone can come up with a more thorough and sourced article. ~RAM (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete WP:TNT Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into another suitable article. As governor of Africa, he clearly meets the criteria for notability, even if very little is known of him apart from his (possible) relationships to other notable persons. He might be merged into another article, perhaps about Roman governors of Africa, but only if most or all of the data here is suitable for inclusion there. The arguments about the sourcing given above are misdirected. Settipani is a source of uncertain value, because his work is difficult to obtain and review, and it has received relatively little peer review due to its density—but there is no direct evidence that his conclusions are unreliable, provided that they're accurately described when cited. And to dispute that, we'd need to see what Settipani says—we can't demand that the article's author prove that the source says what it's claimed to say, or else delete it. That's not what verifiability means, and verifiability is not determined by whether a source is available online, in English, or conveniently. But even if you delete Settipani, that wouldn't make the subject non-notable or the details unverifiable. Due diligence would require us to make a reasonable search for sources before concluding that there are none—and it seems very improbable that there aren't some reliable sources other than Settipani—whatever you think of his methodology and conclusions, he didn't just invent governors of Africa for whom there was no evidence. WP:TNT is not policy, and clearly does not describe this article; this short and relatively succinct article is obviously not "hopelessly irreparable" simply because it could use additional details or more accessible sources. P Aculeius (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- He would be notable if we knew anything about him. However all we have here is genealogfical links to Magnus Felix Ennodius, which names two people called Ennodius as proconsuls of Africa. I believe that in many cases, we do not know the full succession of provincial governors. Perhaps merge/redirect to Magnus Felix Ennodius. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterate support for deletion. We know nothing about this Ennodius aside from his name being mentioned in law codes from after his death (see the reference provided in the original post). We know nothing about his life, what he did as governor... nothing – just that he existed. The article only contains speculative genealogical trivia which, even if relevant, belongs in the article of his supposed descendant. I have no idea what this article should be merged into, as has been suggested above. As of now, we have virtually nothing on the subject, so WP:TNT can by all means apply here: nothing of much value will be lost.
Avilich (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
Avilich: Please add the ref to Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire here. T8612 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Done.

Avilich (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep or merge
Avilich is making to clean up the mess not only this now-banned editor has made, but others inadvertently have added to. There are many articles in this area that need work -- either rewriting or deletion -- but sometimes this clean up needs to be handled with care. I honestly wish we had another article we could merge this permastub with -- that is the best solution -- but I can't think of a good candidate. (If Anicia gens were in better shape, that would be a good choice.) There is no harm in keeping this permastub around for the time being until a satisfactory solution is found. -- llywrch (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

After a bit more thought, I think the best solution might be to merge this article with

WP:FRANKENSTEIN. -- llywrch (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Llywrch, first of all, many thanks for your words. The pool of questionable articles isn't that big to begin with, and I think many if not most of those worthy of deletion (those related to ancient Rome) are already dealt with, as of now. Hopefully my pinging you multiple times hasn't been a bother.

I wasn't aware that there were multiple Ennodii whose articles are in a similar state to the one currently nominated for deletion. With regards to this specific one, I don't like the idea of keeping, since mentioning only that he was governor of Africa in 395 and nothing else makes for an awkward article, though the comparison with the football players was admittedly compelling. The genealogical stuff, which does not itself determine notability, could simply be scattered among the articles of relevant individual Anicii (perhaps a family tree could feature on one of them). As for merging, this question is made difficult because there is no obvious 'gens' article to which Ennodius could be redirected by default. A prosopographical list of Ennodii could be created, but we only seem to know that they were governors of Africa, and we already have governor lists for that. In the end, I had thought there was no harm in getting rid of a subpar article and letting a diligent editor figure the problem out in the future; in the meantime, we already have the list of governors

Avilich (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Avilich, you make a good argument if we assume that it is proper to delete articles about people who meet the bar for notability, but for whom we have little or no information. However, even if we were to delete these articles it would be inevitable at some time in the future another Wikipedian would try to recreate this article -- which would then be a permastub, perhaps with less reliable information. (This is a problem waiting for us with a large number of articles.) Let's avoid this problem by creating an article about both, mention that some experts believe they are related... & this is all there is to know about them. That way we have decisively dealt with this subject -- which is all I'm interested in -- & we can move on to other challenges. -- llywrch (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. As correctly pointed out by others before me, this person is notable. No question about it. So delete is really not an option. Merge is an option and, since the article is short, would be my first preference. Yet there is no good merge target. Which leaves keep as the only good option. gidonb (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Ran a continent (or what was known of one). As noted, not against merging somewhere relevant. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:09, 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. Steve Smith (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFRT Music

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

Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources to establish

talk) 09:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Update: It was a billboard award for a song it published. It joined the RIAA. — Preceding

talk • contribs) 09:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 09:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 10:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 10:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 10:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

talk) 09:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - not enough in depth coverage to meet either
WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:56, 1 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 keep. The consensus of this discussion is explicitly clear. The BLP arguments have not been supported by the discussion. I particularly do not accept that we should use articles like this to move the window on BLP and GNG. This person may well be a scumbag (to quote someome in the discussion) but his article should not be a battleground to change policy. Instead that is what policy talk pages should be for.

One final point should be the title of this article. I don't feel that politician is the correct tag and I would suggest further discussion on the article talk should agree a new location.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Nathan Larson (politician)

)

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

He's not a notable person. He's notorius, and that's different. The article's a hatchet job, and that can't be fixed -- it's inherently a hatchet job because of the sources of his supposed notability. That's a BLP violation. So let's see...

Sure he meets the

WP:GNG

. So let me point out a couple-few things about that.

The GNG is a guideline (not a policy). It's a good guideline! It's important and useful, and I always look at it when considering the fate of articles. Look at it. There are quite a number of other factors in play when considering an article.
One reason we know this is that apparently a whole lot of our articles don't meet the GNG. I looked at 100 random articles (here) and two thirds did not meet the GNG. Another third could probably be made to meet the GNG, or else meet an SNG (Special Notability Guideline, such as are in force for many athletes etc.) Another third cannot.
Conversely, sometimes articles that do meet the GNG are deleted (and should be). Right here is an article that meets the GNG probably better than 95% of our articles, with 45 refs including in-depth coverage by CNN, the Boston Globe, USA Today, the New York Times, Time Magazine, The Washington Post, and several other highly notable publications in America, and even internationally in the Guardian, Hindustan Times, Australian Broadcasting Company, the Indian Express, the Irish Times, the BBC, and Geo TV (Pakistan). The article was nevertheless deleted (basically on grounds of being ephemeral) and probably should have been. People looked at the GNG but (probably properly) decided there were other, more compelling, arguments for deleting the article.
And so an important factor in play is that the article's a
WP:IAR
, which comes into play since the article is not an ornament to the Wikipedia.

WP:BLP

says:

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist...the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment... Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article [emphasis added].... Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care...

And I mean a lot of the refs are of the nature of "OMG! Look at this! Here's this person who's a self-confessed _________, and he's running for office! Well what is the world coming to!". We are not supposed to be doing this.

So let's see.., article ledes are supposed to lay out why the person is notable... the lede of this article is too cutesy by half: it starts with

Nathan Daniel Larson (born September 19, 1980) is an American perennial candidate for public office in the U.S. state of Virginia.

So this is presented first, as his most important factor of notability. But he's not a perennial candidate to the degree sufficient for an article. He ran for Congress once, and got 1.46% of the vote. He ran for the lower house of the state legislature, which is not a very notable position, and got 1.68. And that's it. (He started another run for Congress, but withdrew.) That's... there are many thousands of people with this level of electoral accomplishment, and they don't have articles and shouldn't. Nor does two (or three if you squint) runs for office make one a "perennial candidate", which term is a pejorative and we shouldn't use it since it's not true.

So why does this person have an article? Well let's see what's really going on here:

He served 14 months in prison for the felony of threatening the President of the United States. He has advocated greatly curtailing women's rights and decriminalizing child sexual abuse and incest, and is a white supremacist. In 2020, Larson was [redacted].

Well first of all this applies to thousands upon thousands of people, except for the bit about

threatening the President of the United States, but even that is an American sport: prosecutions for that average about 40 a year over the last 20 years (it says here). Larson was convicted, and I don't know how common that is, but prosecutors don't usually bring charges unless they've got a good chance of winning. This 2019 article

notes two people who were convicted in the same week of threatening the President. Those people don't have articles. Should they, do you think?

So on what basis do have a lede here? We shouldn't really open with saying he's a perennial candidate, because he's really not, and even if he is he's only so at the level of thousands of people who don't have articles. We shouldn't really open with "is a person who was convicted for threatening the President of the United States", because that's very common and people don't get articles for that. We shouldn't really open with "A person who has advocated greatly curtailing women's rights and decriminalizing child sexual abuse and incest, and is a white supremacist", because that's true of my Grand-Uncle Dwight and millions of other people. We absolutely cannot open with the final sentence which is about an arrest, and BLP specifically forbids mentions of crimes until actual conviction (I removed that sentence since BLP compels editors to remove such material on sight). And we can't really open with "is just a really awful person" because that's not how we roll.

So let's be honest here: 1) Nathan Larson is a ______ ______, and he's also a ______ and a ______. 2) And he's also an extreme right-wing person, and a white supremacist, and all that. 3) And so we don't like him, at all. And that's why he has an article, even though he's just not worth an article. But "Here's a guy we reallllllly don't like" is not a basis for an article, and Wikipedia policy says so. [EDIT: the above section bit is utterly false, unkind, insulting, and other bad stuff. I was called out on it, probably not harshly enough, and I've apologized to the article creator User:Yngvadottir if that helps and commended the skill and daring of her work. I'm embarrassed, but the rest of my argument still stands. Herostratus (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get that there's going to be a whole lot of "votes" to the effect of "boop beep, meets GNG, keep". I'm calling upon the closer to note that this is not a vote, and that policy considerations are real important. (There was a previous deletion nomination for this article (here), but it was closed after two days, apparently purely on preliminary headcount at the time, or the closer just liked the article, or something. I wouldn't count that as a real AfD.)

This is just a really bad article for us to publish. Delete. (Full disclosure: FWIW I hate this guy. That has nothing to do with what we're about here.) Herostratus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(References for some of the above material are required per BLP, and here they are, lifted from the article: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ "Nathan Larson's Biography". Vote Smart. Archived from the original on 2018-06-07.
Huffington Post. Archived
from the original on 2018-06-07.

^ William Cummings (June 2, 2018) [June 1, 2018]. "Nathan Larson is a pedophile and a white supremacist. And he's running for Congress". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04.

Fauquier Times-Democrat. Archived
from the original on March 17, 2018.

^ Andrew Buncombe (June 2, 2018). "Self-described white supremacist and paedophile running for US congress from his parents' home". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Herostratus (talk) 09:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 09:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Was nominated for deletion three years ago and all the users voting said keep. The article also meets
WP:NOTABLE and is rated C-Class in WP Biography. –Cupper52^Discuss! 10:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Well but all the users didn't say keep. A few did, and then the AfD was shut down before any delete votes could be recorded. That doesn't really count as a proper AfD, I'd consider this the first AfD for the article.Herostratus (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NPOL spectacularly. At least he's consistent. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wrote the article after his candidacy for Congress had attracted nationwide news coverage. (I believe there are earlier deleted versions from before that.) I regret that to a certain extent; it was an agony to keep it neutral and to keep hiw Wikipedia activities, which I think are pure naval-gazing, out of it; I tangled with another editor and walked away. But he was notable then under GNG and has been recently arrested, with, again, massive amounts of news coverage (Newsweek, September (!), Washington Post, Newsweek again, Denver Post, NBC, ABC local paper with arrest details). I'm afraid he amply meets our notability criteria to have a biography, although his criminal record and the latest accusations would now need to be more prominent in the introduction since the basis for his being all over the national news has changed. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm pretty conservative on BLP issues, but the nominator's position, as I understand, amounts roughly to "If a person is only notable for being awful, we shouldn't have an article about them", which I don't think finds any support in either policy or common sense. Steve Smith (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because people are piling on to Herostratus's nom, I should at least indicate that I agree with them wholeheartedly that, in appropriate circumstances,
WP:GNG. I am thinking here of cases where a fundamentally private individual is thrust involuntarily into the public eye in a way that results in plenty of coverage in reliable sources, but for reasons that are embarrassing to them; in that case, our regard for subjects' privacy should make us seriously consider whether it is appropriate to participate in that intrusion. That is not this case, however. Steve Smith (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Nobody is denying that principle. I have made many such nominations myself, eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Legg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deangelo Martin. But these principles do not apply here, as this individual is notable for several events unrelated to their alleged crime, and the nominator has stated as much in their nom. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and I are in agreement, but I don't agree that nobody is denying this principle. Several users are treating the fact that Larson meets
WP:GNG as dispositive of the question of whether he should have an article, when in fact that's totally non-responsive to the nominator's rationale for deletion. More broadly, I am aware of a strong current of thought in the Wikipedia community holding that, since we rely on secondary sources that exercise editorial judgment, we are exempt from having to exercise any of our own, and I do not wish to be seen as falling within that current. Steve Smith (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Obvious keep When your nomination begins by explaining why the subject clearly meets
talk) 23:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

User:Beeblebrox, tsk, you of all people should remember that writing "known for being a terrible person" is a big BLP violation, unless you have a good source saying just that and link to it here. I note that the person below wrote "scumbag" and and above there's "awful" and who knows what other monkey business is going on. BLP does not permit but rather requires editors to redact such material on sight. But I'll tell you what. I'll turn a blind eye if you protect me if I'm brought up for writing "poor and insignificant mentally damaged person" below, which I did. Herostratus (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Obvious scumbag, obvious keep - The sources are too darned many, and I don't find Herostratus' reasoning convincing in the least. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; there's nothing wrong with notability via notoriety. Everything is amply sourced. If we're invoking IAR, then I also have an IAR rationale to keep: it is good to document how people like this have misused Wikipedia to advance their own awful views and have kept returning as sockpuppets. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's included in this Vox article about incels from 2019 because of the forums he started. Coin (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty
reliable sources, and the subject meets notability. I don't know why this is at AfD in the first place, given the plethora of news sources - Alison ^❤ 22:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Alison and Cullen (elsewhere). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Plenty of good sources.BabbaQ (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and SNOW close Per the sources in the article, the ridiculous nom statement that basically argues that the article meets our most basic, universally accepted inclusion criteria, (GNG), and due to the fact the there are no BLP issues since there is adequate reliable sources and notoriety of the individual. Valeince (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets GNG quite easily. The claimed distinction between notable and "notorious" is contrived and not based on policies or guidelines. The "he's not worth an article" argument is subjective and without merit. I do agree that if he was just a guy who lost a few elections badly, the article should be deleted. But the significant coverage of him in many reliable sources is for several other reasons as well. All those reasons combined make him a notable person, and an encyclopedia with over six million articles should have a biography about this person. Any BLP concerns can be resolved by normal editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep - I would love to vote Delete. But try as a might the rationales don't work. It's not a BLP violation because he is intentionally courting negative controversy. There are plenty of source because the press is raising his star, not our fault. The coverage is significant enough it can't be tossed aside as mere moral panic. I don't understand why his history as a Wikipedia user, well sourced, is not discussed anywhere. The lead section needs some work to better indicate he is notable for being a troll and now criminal. The Haraatz article by Omer Benjakob can be a model to follow. -- GreenC 00:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's obvious this article meets GNG as you have explained that yourself but I fail to find any BLP violations that make it so this article should be deleted. 'This guy is awful and I don't like him' is not a convincing argument for deletion. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails every metric as a politician. Not sure he meets the minimum standard as a criminal. There's probably enough from column A and column B to get this over the GNG hump, but my sentiment is for an IAR delete. I really don't like Wikipedians doing bellybutton-gazing articles on other Wikipedians, glorious or defrocked. If this guy was not a Wikipedian, would this article ever have been written? No, it would not. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article, strangely, does not mention at all that he was a Wikipedian, despite considerable extensive coverage about it in reliable sources. The problem is not bellybutton gazing, rather a reaction in the opposite direction giving it the air of a coverup. Does that mean we turn into an article primarily about Wikipedia? Of course not, but there is also a place for it, according to the sourcing. If that is too difficult to deal with there are some editors who skilled at finding the right balance for these difficult subjects. -- GreenC 02:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has over a paragraph on it. There's too much of it, if anything. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what happened I searched cntrl-f "wikipedia" and found nothing (other than the Haraaz title), but I see the paragraph now. -- GreenC 03:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:GNG. There are obvious content issues, but AFD is not the place to hash them out. This is a guy with multiple independent nontrivial mentions in the news media for a variety of incidents, and the ongoing criminal case only adds to that. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Alright, but you started editing this month and this is your 20th edit, and your edit history shows that you are certainly a fast learner. Have you edited previously under another name or IP? (That wouldn't negate your argument, but it'd be a data point for headcount.) Herostratus (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you’ve got an accusation to make, then I suggest you make it in the appropriate forum. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps redirect his name to
Threatening the President of the United States#Incidents with a few sentences there about him. What is the basis of notability for a stand-alone article? This is a troubled person. This article is worth reading, including the final sentence. He isn't a politician. Standing for office doesn't make him notable, and I'm not sure that standing three times over ten years makes him a perennial candidate. Other than that, there is threatening the President, the situation with his family, expressing vile (and bizarre) views, creating vile websites, editing Wikipedia, and now the latest abduction situation. It's all over the place. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
It is worth noting that for almost a decade he was not eligible to run for office due to a conviction, according to the article. Also, your rationale confuses me. Are “troubled people” not eligible for an article? If so, what definition for troubled person are we using? Do we have any diagnosis to come to this judgement, or an RS? You list a laundry list of things this person has done, and then conclude he is not notable? I do not understand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nobody is required to be notable for a particular reason and we don't censor articles on "troubled" people. These suggestions are not based in guidelines and policy. Larson has courted attention and has received significant, dedicated coverage in US national press since 2017, not only for his political runs, but also his online activities - and now his arrest. So BLP1E doesn't apply. Fences&Windows 21:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has Nathan ever spoken about his Wikipedia article? If yes, what did he say about this article? HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a guideline that says if a person is borderline notable, and has stated that he does not want to have a Wikipedia article, such can be considered as courtesy. I was just thinking if that would apply here.HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He has edited it with some enthusiasm, but I don't think he's ever commented on whether he wanted it or not. Also, back when he edited, he took the position that nothing should ever be deleted, so to that extent I guess he's made his position known? Steve Smith (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then clearly Keep.HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as someone with a lot of non-trivial coverage from major news sources like WaPo, USA Today and Haaretz (and tons of other sources of various scale), he unquestionably passes GNG. The argument about him being just another Wikipedian with article™ might've made a bit of sense a month ago, however with newest developments with his arrest for kidnapping it has become moot: he's both a fringe political candidate known for his extreme views and a suspect in a notable criminal case. Max Semenik (talk) 15:48, 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.

Arbitrary break

Extended content

There's a lot to chew on here, and I'm requesting the closer to relist as long as comments are coming in. We want to get this right, there's no hurry. I'm trying to move the Overton window on both GNG and BLP maybe just a little bit here, maybe by only one or two editors (but you never know!), so let's keep going.
So... a point that I haven't seen addressed are are around the User:Herostratus/Trump orb situation. That article was deleted in 2017 (here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump orb (2nd nomination)) despite not only meeting the GNG but far far far exceeding it. The headcount was 28-8 to delete, so this is fine (I think it's OK because I'm not a slave to the GNG guideline).
My questions are 1) Since the article clearly and incontrovertibly met GNG, should that AfD been closed as Keep (AfD is not a vote)? Were 28 editors wrongheaded?
2) If not, why would that article be deleted and this one kept, considering that

2A) After all, the entity described in that article is far far far more famous and remains so (three years later in 2020 I see three lengthy articles in the WSJ, the Guardian, and Business Insider on the entity; and SNL's latest show referenced the entity).

2B) That article, after all, is not using our enormous power to -- at least arguably -- drag some poor and insignificant mentally damaged person through the mud and besmirch his name highly visibly and forever. (Which isn't a reason to make a special effort to keep articles. I hope?)

I'd like to see some cogent answers to my questions, but they're probably not forthcoming, because there aren't any I don't think. Prove me wrong. Herostratus (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a general policy discussion,
Nathan Larson (politician), for which the weather seems to be heavy precipitation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll give you an answer anyway. Trump orb appears to have been deleted because editors were convinced it met various overriding criteria in
WP:NOT does not apply here, and editors have decided that an article is warranted. These are decisions to be made on a case by case basis, which is being made, and effectively has been made, here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

OK, and thanks for answering. The problem is, let's be honest. Read the AfD. Trump orb was deleted because Wikipedia editors just don't want that kind article. Again: fine.
WP:1Q
tells how it works: "Ask yourself, should the article exist? Answer that question first, then pick whatever policy, guideline, essay, or argument supports the answer. Don't flip the order." Not only is this OK (WP:IAR is a core policy!) but, as humans, we do this is a lot. You know we do. Editors did it there, and they're doing it here. Fine, just let's not kid ourselves and each other, and then we can address what's going on here on a more honest level. Make sense?

So, there was a good deal of flailing there. Some editors were out front: "The Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme" and "not encylopedic" so forth. Good! Casting about for more cover, editors basically painted the entity as ephemera (a good reason to delete, if true!) But the entity obviously turned out not to be ephemera (see above, and there's more). So, they were certainly wrong. There's nothing in
WP:NOT
to proscribe the article (NOTNEWS mainly says not to publish our own eyewitness reporting), but "Delete per WP:SOMEPOLICY" sounds impressive, so that was deployed a lot.

The actual reason that article was deleted was because, come on, GNG or no, people do not want us to document every meme that comes down the pike, or publish 365 articles a year on what Donald Trump does each day. Again: fine.

The actual reason that this Nathan Larson article is being kept? All I can figure so far is these three:
Yes, I really am a GNG bug, and those 28 !voters were misguided, and I wish that article had been kept.

That article was about silly nonsense, but Nathan Larson is a figure in 21st century American politics and that's important.

I hate this guy and, hey, he asked for it so we should give him what he deserves and make him infamous.

I think that all of these reasons are in probably in play, and I think that all are wrong, is all.Herostratus (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
”Does it make the encyclopaedia better” is a very different question from “Do I want this article to exist?” I’ve closed many discussions in a way that beats my personal preferences and what I think makes Wikipedia better. It’s perfectly possible to assume objective roles. So I strongly disagree that #3 is motivating this discussion. It may motivate some votes, but I do not think it motivates consensus. As for that article, you can try
WP:OSE, otherwise we’d never get anything done. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh absolutely, it was fine to close that AfD as delete. Headcount is an important data point, especially when it's lopsided. And this article will be kept unless there's a big turnaround soon, and that's correct also; I won't object. Still looking for that turnaround though -- you never know till the lady sings.

Not seeing how "Does it make the encyclopaedia better" is a unrelated to "Do I want this article to exist?". My opinion (not much shared apparently, but still reasonable) is that it makes the Wikipedia better for this article to not exist. It's existence is not an ornament to the project.... picking on a hapless nobody. Let's leave that to the news rags maybe, hmnn? Maybe people don't realize how big and powerful we are. That means you and I User:ProcrastinatingReader: right now, for this person's fate in the world, you and I are very powerful. You can't run away from that. When you're powerful it's easy to crush people without meaning to even realizing it, and then it's easy to do it without much caring, and then it's easy to do it to advance your interests... It makes the Wikipedia better to not go down that path. And we don't have to. We're free persons in the world, and we can sweep aside rules when we want to (as happened in the the Trump Orb AfD), and no rule written can force us to publish anything we shouldn't.

The thing about NOTNEWSPAPER, heh, is that a lot -- a whole lot! -- of editors think that we should not publish about very recent events unless they're obviously an especially really big deal, but there's no policy against it (maybe there should be), so given its title NOTNEWSPAPER looks like the best port in that storm. But if you read the rest of the section you quoted it does go on to say Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia... breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Not be emphasized. The rule proscribes the argument "borderline notable at best, but it's in news right now and that's a reason to make a special exception and publish", and that's all it does really. Most cites of NOTNEWS are cover for "I don't like articles on recent events", is all. (That's reasonable, it's just not our policy.) Herostratus (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's best to consider
WP:DELAY

I think, in line with our current standards, this person is worthy of note and should have an article. I think it's not my business to decide whether it's good or bad, holy or evil - readers can decide that. The point is that it's notable, and hence we have an article on it. We're not "[giving] him what he deserves", I think editors don't decide what someone "deserves".

The points you're making directly lead to saying that living criminals should not have articles (regardless of conviction) out of fear of their future reputation. That is a significant deviation from current standards and deserves a policy discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I think it's not my business to decide whether it's good or bad..." well OK then, but whoever told you that was surely wrong. "It's not my place to make a moral judgement here" is a moral judgement, and you can't escape the moral world by sitting down at a keyboard. You just can't. I could point you to the B___ P___ case where the community did indeed decide "yeah there's news coverage, but let's leave this poor pathetic guy his privacy", except that I'm not going to publish his name. But that was a long time ago. It's a different Wikipedia now. Better? Maybe not. Are we so rulebound now that we've forgotten that we're supposed to be a benefit to the world of men and not just a hobby website.

I get what you're saying about the criminals, and yeah, we do have a remit to inform the world of important stuff. It's one of the things we're supposed to do, but within the context of balancing inform-the-world with not-being-a-bully. It takes some subtle analysis. We're going to have an article on Charles Manson (even when he was alive). We're not going to have an article on some random private citizen who downloaded child porn. In between is the middle. Earl Bradley is in there and he has an article and should, because he's just too notable to keep out -- hundreds and hundreds of crimes, maybe the worst child molester in American history^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] and we'd be failing our mission if we left him out. Nathan Larson is in the middle too, but (IMO) he's just too far below the line, it's just not mission-critical to cover him -- one crime (for which he hasn't even been convicted yet). I get that the news rags played it up because he's a clickbait sideshow geek in other ways. So what. And the lede isn't even "Nathan Larson is an American criminal..." because there's not enough there to hang an article on. Herostratus (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for your porn guy, he's covered by BLPCRIME unless he's convicted. If convicted, we generally wouldn't have vast amounts of media coverage on the person, but if we did then BLP1E and enduring relevance for notability considerations apply and he may or may not be notable. It depends on a case by case basis and evaluation.

"Moral" is usually a weak standard in a deletion discussion, because your morals are different from my morals which are different from the next guy. PAG arguments give everyone a clear framework to work from.

"Mission critical" is also a
WT:BLP and {{rfc}} all have space for you to raise these concerns. Anyway, this is circular, I've given you better venues to raise these concerns. I don't think there's much else I can say here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I just wanted to draw attention to the moral point as well. The idea that the people who want to keep this article are doing so in order to publicly shame someone is itself a moral judgment. We're supposed to leave those judgments at the door when we discuss inclusion. From my perspective, one of the core principles of inclusion and exclusion is and should always be to convey information though the sky may fall. That is to say, the alleged impact of our articles should not be considered legitimate arguments for inclusion or exclusion. Or put differently, we should not concern ourselves with issues external to our mission of providing a repository of free encyclopedic information. Everything flows back to the very basic principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It will just serve to derail the discussion further. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Prof.Helen McCaffrey (2010-04-11). "The Justice of God". Wgmd.Com. Archived from the original on 2011-07-18. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

^ "'America's worst pedophile'?". The Week. 2010-02-24. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

^ "Earl Bradley – Worst Pedophile". CALLS FOR JUSTICE. 2010-03-22. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

^ "Dr. Earl Bradley sex case ignites outrage". The News Journal. 2010-02-24. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

^ "Dr. Pedophile". Article.wn.com. 2010-02-27. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

^ Velez-Mitchell, Jane (February 24, 2010). "Details Emerge of Pediatrician Accused of Abusing Patients (Transcript)". CNN.com. Retrieved July 29, 2014.

^ "Earl Bradley - Photos and News". New York Post. 2010-03-24. Archived from the original on October 23, 2012. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

^ "Pedophile pediatricians follow patterns". Daily Record. 2010-05-02. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

I concur with ProcrastinatingReader. As regards the Trump orb red herring, I give a six-character response:
WP:OSE. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists applies. That one article is deleted do not matter in terms of other articles.BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Ahem,
WP:OSE: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Oof I wish that people would read the pages they cite, particularly when they say the opposite of what they think. And the deletion argument proscribed by OSE is "Delete: we do not have an article on XYZ, so we should not have an article on this". Nobody's making that argument or even remotely close. I know that "per WP:SOMEPAGE" looks impressive when you're casting about for reasons to keep an article you want to keep, but surely there's something better out there. Herostratus (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:WAX then. You're making precisely that sort of argument and it deserves no more than a flippant citation to such a page. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I feel like this "Arbitrary break" wall of text is pounding the table creating an impression of controversy where none really exists except with one vocal user, the nominator. There is a sense of negotiation with the judge going on ("requesting the closer to relist as long as comments are coming in"). Well the whole thing feels a bit out of order and a little manipulatory of the process. I have converted this into a sub-section (replacing "====" with "===") and changed the title from an "arbitrary break" to "Discussion" so that voting can continue in the voting section and discussions out of the voting section. -- GreenC 14:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I'm good. This isn't an RfC, people expect to jump to the end to "vote". It's fine that you can't digest or address the merits of the case, I get it, but there's no need to distract with complaints about how the process works here. Herostratus (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus's unwillingness to co-operate with a request to separate his discussion from the voting is noted. -- GreenC 22:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh just what is that supposed to mean and what does it have to do with what we're trying to accomplish here. Herostratus (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to collapse this subsection as unrelated to the AfD. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Coin (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. -- GreenC 04:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Lengthy text hurts participation, which I think is happening above now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above section should not have been collapsed, although there's nothing I can do about it is there. Of the "wall of text" objected to, one paragraph was my laying out new data, including pointing to new sources; the rest was fruitful, if involved, discussions with other editors.
The only proper reason for hiding text on pages like this is for off-subject material, and that's all I've ever seen it used for, pretty much. The material hidden is directly on subject, and it's against practice to be like "This on-topic material doesn't interest me, therefore nobody else should read it either".
Discussions on this article have resulted in one discussion being prevented, another attempt to prevent discussion (reversed), and now this hiding. That's kind of suspicious, and a disinterested person would note that it's behavior typical of people who don't have winning arguments. Attempts by editors with the weaker argument to violate practice and procedure to try to cut short discussion is not a good look.
That being said, it's clear that the Keep camp has the numbers and no turnaround is coming, and weak argument or no, no closer is going to go against numbers like that or should. I'll withdraw the nomination if I could (but I can't, because there're two other Delete !votes and so withdrawal's not permitted, and I can't close it normally because I'm involved. So some uninvolved person has to do it.) Herostratus (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 1392

Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

This article was Southwest Airlines Flight 1392. It was subsequently moved here
.

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

Does not appear to meet
WP:LASTING
criterion. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Airlines Flight 117 Walrus Ji (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Stragglers hit by aircraft are somewhat unusual, but that doesn't necessarily make them encyclopedic. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Southwest_Airlines#Accidents_and_incidents. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Jax 0677, Why redirect to airlines? since the incident occurred at the airport why not redirect it to Austin–Bergstrom_International_Airport#Accidents_and_incidents. If redirected, I would prefer a redirect to the airport page. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - I have no objection to redirecting to Austin–Bergstrom_International_Airport#Accidents_and_incidents. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Move to
Southwest Airlines Flight 1392 and Redirect to Austin–Bergstrom International Airport#Accidents and incidents - Worth mentioning in the airport article, possibly, but the title would be ambiguous as a redirect - if no content is actually merged there there's no reason to keep the redirect in this case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
- Changed to redirect for attribution as content has been merged. Should be at the title suggested as standard for aircraft incidents and not ambiguous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Austin–Bergstrom_International_Airport#Accidents_and_incidents, it appears to already be mentioned in that section, and insofar as it's ambiguous, the ambiguity is limited to the other incidents also listed there. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Bushranger,Note for the closing admin, that I did merge some useful content to the target article proposed above. Rosguill, what is the ambiguity? Walrus Ji (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Walrus Ji, my comment was directed at The Bushranger's argument. What I'm saying is that while in a vacuum, it's ambiguous which incident this redirect would refer to, any possible option within that halo of ambiguity would be present at the proposed target. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a somewhat usual incident, but the article never got beyond
WP:SYNTHESIS. Sadly, the way it stands the story is just a news oddity - one death for no discernible reason and with no context, so I don't see any point in keeping it as it is. Because the incident is not known in the press as the "Austin–Bergstrom International Airport runway incident" and the article name is not even close to reasonable search term for this subject, I see no point in a redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Airlines, WikiProject Airports and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Austin–Bergstrom International Airport#Accidents and incidents. As User:Walrus Ji has indicated that they merged some of the content from this article to that one, the edit history of this article cannot be deleted outright for the sake of attribution. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I concur with this statement. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. Some above have argued for a redirect. But the title is too vague to be useful, a redirect is pointless. If anything were to be created as a redirect, it would need to be more specific. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this survived an AFD in May, why is it being renominated again? RecycledPixels (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Wrong. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was AFDed as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 1392, but subsequently renamed. BilCat (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If this is the case, the old AFD needs to be listed at the top of this AFD, and the AFD should be allowed to run for one whole week after that. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it being nominated for AFD again? Because it has had no lasting effects, fails

WP:NEVENT. - Ahunt (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

That's what you said in the other AFD as well, which resulted in a keep. I'm just puzzled why someone (not you) can just renominate an article for AFD a few months later with the same rationale when there has already been a consensus to keep, and not much has changed with the article since then. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LASTING is not seen in this incident after all those months. The AfD1 should not really have been kept, it was a mistaken assessment by folks who voted keep. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:CONSENSUS is not based only on quantity, but also on quality of arguments presented. Sometimes it changes, sometimes it doesn't. We shall soon see how this case pans out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:NEVENT. It was kept at the time because editors argued that the event would be proven notable, with lasting effects, overtime. That has not happened and it was pretty clear to anyone with an aviation background at the time that it wouldn't. One guy climbed over a fence and got hit by an airliner - end of story. Even the airport has not changed anything they do, didn't make the fence higher, didn't make trespassers get passes. The only oddity about this story is that none of the investigating authorities have released any reports on it at all and the press has reported nothing since the day of the occurrence. I suspect the police, coroner, FAA and airport authority reports all just concluded that he climbed over the fence for undetermined reasons and closed the case. But that just makes it even less notable - no follow up at all, no lasting effects and nothing to be learned from it for any of the parties concerned. Because the first AfD was not decided correctly, based upon the evidence available and Wikipedia policy, we are back here again to correct that. An article is not AfD-proof just because it has been through the process once before. It is kind of a waste of time to have to debate these things a second time, but the first one was not decided correctly and people predicted the story would become notable over time, so here we are. - Ahunt (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The section reiterating this accident at the airport page is sufficient. I feel like this type of incident doesn't have as much to do with the airplane itself as it's a 'security breach' of the airport, and as mentioned above, I'd want to see sources about impact on airport ops to warrant notability. IATA needs pages like this, WP not quite so much. (But what a way to go) Estheim (talk) 21:24, 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dogtown, Glenn County, California

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

The name appears late on the topos, at an undeveloped interesection in the middle of the woods. I've found one passing mention for this Dogtown, but unable to turn up anything significant whatsoever. All of the coverage I can find is for other Dogtowns, particularly the one in Marin County and the one now known as Magalia. Doesn't seem to meet

WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-created junk should not require individual AFDs. Reywas92^Talk 01:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; clear GNG and GEOLAND fail Spiderone 18:54, 1 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 redirect to

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The Hitachi Foundation

)

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

Page is full of advertising; nearly all the sources are from its website or in articles sponsored by Hitachi. The Foundation is not notable simply because it was created by Hitachi (

WP:INHERITORG). There simply has not been significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Hitachi#The Hitachi Foundation per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hitachi#Corporate social responsibility, and create a new subsection there. Merge should be highly selective, since most of the current article is advertising, but there is enough there to merge rather than simply redirecting. If the end result is merge, ping me and I'll be happy to do it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:46, 1 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 redirect to

(non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Alan Berg (politician)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alan Berg (politician)

)

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

A week ago, I nominated Alan's page for deletion as a bundle with his wife Helen's page. Other users voted to keep Helen, but a majority of the people who voted to keep her page also voted to delete Alan's page or turn it into a redirect to Helen's. While I now agree with the decision to keep Helen's page due to the good work done by

WP:PROF, I am nominating Alan on his own. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 02:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails
talk 03:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect. I think that having a non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Berg by User:gidonb was a mistake, because the inexperienced closer neglected to evaluate the parts of the discussion on Alan Berg, which I think were close to a consensus that his article should be redirected to the article on Helen. In fact, I don't think there was any sentiment for keeping the article. I, for one, tried to find comparable sourcing for Alan to what I found for Helen, failed, and on the basis of that expressed my opinion for a delete or redirect. That could still happen now and shortcut this second discussion. Redirecting can be done by anyone; it doesn't require administrative action. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per David Eppstein and the arguments over at the other discussion (with a reminder that comments in AfD's are not "votes"). XOR'easter (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for either politicians nor academics. There is no good reason to have a redirect, because he is so minor very few people would ever want to know anything about him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Helen Berg until such point someone creates a List of Mayors of Corvallis, or sufficient sources are found about the subject's term in office to justify a stand-alone article. The place to look would be the archives of the Gazette Times, but there may be some sources from the Eugene Register-Guard or the Oregonian. But there may also be primary source material at the Corvallis City Hall or documents from the Oregon League of Cities. --Enos733 (talk) 05:17, 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. Consensus is the cleanup by Cunard negates any issues from sockpuppets. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GreenPal

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

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
1. 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."
2. 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."
3. 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."
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 delete.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Darren Roos

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

No indication of satisfying

WP:GNG or any relevant criteria. The sources cited are all company website, press releases, interviews, and articles written by contributors which are either considered primary or non independent sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article covers

WP:BASIC, since the subject has a depth of coverage in multiple independent sources such as [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], thus demonstrate notability. These sources have since been added to the article. Similar pages exist for similar tech executives such as Bill McDermott, Werner Brandt and Vishal Sikka to name a few. NaminiGunasena (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm afraid there is no reasonable way of regarding those sources as "a depth of coverage in multiple independent sources". Most of them are not about Roos. Several of them merely give a couple of sentences or so of quotes from him; one of them is a video in which he speaks: it is not about him. The second link you give I was not able to check, as I just got the message Access Denied. You don't have permission to access "http://www.nasdaq.com/videos/tradetalks%3A-digital-transformation-investments-in-2020-and-how-culture-can-drive-it" on this server. However, the title in the URL suggests that the page is not substantially, if at all, about Roos. There are in fact just two sources which are substantially about Roos. One of them is an announcement by CEO Today Magazine that they were giving him an award: really not substantial coverage, quite apart from the fact that the award seems to be largely promotional. The other one which is actually about Roos has the following as the full and complete text about him: "As Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of IFS, Darren Roos leads the talented team at IFS to further scale the company's global business and extend IFS's leadership position in Field Service Management, Enterprise Asset Management and Enterprise Resource Planning markets. Prior to joining IFS, Roos was the President of SAP's global ERP Cloud business. As a technology leader who has spent nearly 20 years building global software businesses, Roos' proven track record and ability to deliver results has earned him a reputation as a customer advocate, industry thought leader and Cloud expert." I'm afraid there is no way of regarding that as either substantial coverage or neutral, independent coverage; yet that is about as good as any of the sources you have given.

As for your statement that there are articles on other people who you regard as "similar", see

WP:OTHERSTUFF

.

It is natural that you should try to save the article you created from deletion, but I'm afraid that, far from those sources demonstrating notability, the fact that they are the best you have managed to find strongly suggests that he is not notable. JBW (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, IFS is the second-largest Tech company in Sri Lanka, and locally Roos has significant coverage in the local media and industry, following are articles published in some of the major publications in Sri Lanka, [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. NaminiGunasena (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:16, 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 02:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's not notable aside from his work with the company, which nearly all the cited sources are about. This is another article about a dude who has a job, and it reads a bit like a resume. FalconK (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the sources above I believe this individual meets

WP:N. Enough coverage out there about him to warrant a page. HarrietsCharriot (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I have explained above why "the sources above" don't establish notability. As for "Enough coverage out there", you may find it helpful to read

WP:VAGUEWAVE. JBW (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. The statements above by Umakant Bhalerao and Falcon Kirtaran are exactly true. The article reads like a promotional résumé, most of the sources are neither independent nor substantial coverage. I have also done my own searches for suitable sources, and found only more of the same, plus the Wikipedia article. JBW (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:46, 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.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream

)

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

this is entirely PR spam, sourced to more PR spam with no in depth coverage of My/Mo Mochi, everything is a press release or funding/finance announcements which do not lend itself to notability. Praxidicae (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment I promoted this from AfC; neutral on whether it stays or goes. Contrary to the nom, the article [33] seems to be independent & in-depth; as does [34] and [35]. Not sure how many such articles @Praxidicae: is looking for, nor how they draw a line between PR spam and, err, not PR spam. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep. Sources such as CNN, Fox and Yahoo are reliable, independent and discuss the subject in depth. The tone is factual and free from hype. Discussing a commercial product does not automatically make the article spam. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is an rs but its a single source and cannot possibly substantiate an entire article, the other two pointed out above are q&as which lack independence and aren't coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is a reliable source. The introductions to interviews are valid sources, and the interviews indicate that the subject has been noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Forbes staff pieces are reliable, contributor pieces aren't reliable and independent. Praxidicae (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yahoo and Fox business have in depth coverage. There is also a CNN mention. So there is significant coverage to meet notability. To Nominator: Do you have any arguments on why you think there is PR? How exactly can we distinguish between a company that has major media to be PR or free media?? Peter303x (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments in both of the other Keep entries above that pertain to notability and factuality, and maybe most importantly, the very relevant comment from the AfC promoter tagged as Comment above.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delete~~The article is about a product, not a company, changed !vote to Keep Not a single one of the references meet the NCORP criteria, especially both
WP:CORPDEPTH
or else the sources are PRIMARY or unreliable. Here's why:
- This from Fox Business is entirely based on an interview. There is nothing in the article that is one of "independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" as everything appears attributable to the person being interviewed. Articles that rely on interviews fail
  WP:ORGIND
- [https://www.centuryparkcapital.com/2015/07/09/century-park-capital-partners-completes-acquisition-of-mikawaya/ This from Century Park Capital" is to support a tangential fact in the article and does not even mention this company, not relevant for the purposes of establishing notability
- This from CNN fails for the same reasons as the foxbusiness reference. It is entirely based on an interview with the same person (Marketing officer). Also, many of the same descriptions and language pops up in multiple stories and PR. Fails
  WP:ORGIND
  as it relies on an interview and/or information provided by the company.
- This from FoodDive is based on an interview, confirmed in the byline, fails
  WP:ORGIND
  as above
- MyMochie.com Primary source
- This from Mashed is exactly what it says. All of the information about the company in this article is credited to CNN - the exact same CNN Business article above - or the Primary source. Fails
  WP:ORGIND
  for the same reason as the CNN article.
- The Entrepreneur article is based on an interview with the same Marketing Officer as all the others above. In my opinion, he's doing a great job, the company sure is getting its name out there. Reference fails the criteria for establishing notability though, fails
  WP:ORGIND
  for the same reasons as the other articles that rely entirely on information provided in an interview or by the company.
- This from Yahoo Finance is based on an interview but with a different company executive than the others. Still fails
  WP:ORGIND
  though.
- This from FoodBev is a company announcement, fails
  WP:ORGIND
- This from Axios takes you to the Forbes "Contributors" section which is not a reliable source, fails
  WP:RS
- This from Packing Digest is based on an announcement, fails
  WP:ORGIND
- This in Cassandra is a marketing firm showcasing the work they did for the company. Fails
  WP:ORGIND

When you go through all of these references and look at other references out there, you realise that every single dot of information in this article is based on what the company and the company marketing executives wrote. There isn't an independent line out there.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent

reliable sources

.

Rivera, Dane (2020-11-10). "Every Flavor Of My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream, Ranked". Uproxx. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
Lucas, Jillian (2019-01-25). "My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream's Newest Triple Layer Desserts Are The Perfect Bite. These things have completely changed my outlook on mochi". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
Geisler, Jennie (2019-01-30). "'Mochi' dough-covered ice cream bites intrigue". Erie Times-News. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
Bertrand, Amy (2019-03-13). "Best bites: My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
Barrett, Kenya; Valdespino, Anne (2017-08-11). "Taste-Off: Judging Grocery Store Ice Cream Treats".
Orange County Register. Archived from the original
on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.

Lucas, Jillian (2020-05-09). "The Best Snacks for Stress Eating Right Now". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
Chen, Connie (2017-08-25). "Mochi ice cream is the colorful, snack-size treat taking over your supermarkets and Instagram feeds". Insider Inc. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.

Sources with quotes

Rivera, Dane (2020-11-10). "Every Flavor Of My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream, Ranked". Uproxx. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
The article notes:
If you seek it out, chances are the first brand you’ll see is Los Angeles-based My/Mo Mochi. Kroger carries it. So does Target. Whether you’re in Anchorage, Alaska, or Zzyzx, California (an actual city!) you’ll be able to find the stuff. Currently, My/Mo Mochi makes fifteen different flavors. Since that’s way too many for a person to pick from blindly, we’ve tested and ranked all fifteen of them below.
Lucas, Jillian (2019-01-25). "My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream's Newest Triple Layer Desserts Are The Perfect Bite. These things have completely changed my outlook on mochi". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
The article notes:
I assumed that I would not like mochi based on how the texture was described, but then came My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream.
...These things have completely changed my outlook on mochi. My first bite was of Dulce du Leche: creamy coffee ice cream filled with caramel, wrapped in a sweet mochi dough. It was perfect. Honestly. Everything about it was amazing. It was a bite-sized bunch of flavor.
Geisler, Jennie (2019-01-30). "'Mochi' dough-covered ice cream bites intrigue". Erie Times-News. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
The article notes:
Eating My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream bites was an experience that reminded me a little of ... They aren’t bad, but they’re not amazing, either. They take a little getting used to, I guess. ... They’re a little pricey at almost a dollar a ball. At $4.99, that’s more than I usually pay for the aforementioned container of ice cream. But I was glad for the chance to try them and get a glimpse of the way the younger half lives.
Bertrand, Amy (2019-03-13). "Best bites: My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
The article notes:
The exterior is a velvety rice mixture that tastes like cookie dough. Inside there’s ice cream. And inside that, another flavor that takes these My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream snacks to another level.
Barrett, Kenya; Valdespino, Anne (2017-08-11). "Taste-Off: Judging Grocery Store Ice Cream Treats".
Orange County Register. Archived from the original
on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
The article notes:
My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream

Goopy, gummy, chewy, rubbery — tasters could not get past the rice-based coating, which one dubbed awkwardly textured and another despised for its floury surface.

Lucas, Jillian (2020-05-09). "The Best Snacks for Stress Eating Right Now". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
The article notes:
My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream

I’ve always been a dessert after dinner person. These little ice cream dough balls are the perfect substitute for digging into a pint with a spoon. They’re soft and pillowy but still sweet and satisfying. Eat two of them and your sweet tooth will be satisfied.
Chen, Connie (2017-08-25). "Mochi ice cream is the colorful, snack-size treat taking over your supermarkets and Instagram feeds". Insider Inc. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
The article notes:
If you're anything like me, you can actually rest easy, because My/Mo comes from the same makers of Mikawaya. That means you can expect the same Mikawaya quality, but with new, exciting flavors and eye-catching packaging. ... Launched only earlier this year in January, My/Mo has enjoyed explosive growth and is now available at 6,000 retailers nationwide, including Whole Foods and Safeway.

There is sufficient coverage in

reliable sources to allow My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:24, 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) 01:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is the company, not the product. You've just posted reviews of their product which is treated as a different and separate topic according to our

HighKing⁺⁺ 23:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The Wikipedia article says, "My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream is an American ice cream brand sold in the United States and Canada." The sources I provided are reviews containing reliable sources' analysis and opinions about the brand. The reliable sources focus on the brand, not the company. The sources establish notability for the brand. Cunard (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, thanks Cunard, I've changed my !vote, I believe the references you've provided meet the criteria for establishing notability.

HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 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 Move to draft.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Altar Games

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

Existed. Lots of mentions, not a single in-depth article from a non-primary source. Virtually all of the mentions are about how it is now defunct, or was purchased by Bohemia. Fails

WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"ALTAR interactive" (lowercase actually, but that's not important) for most of the time, not just "Altar Games". For real "in-depth" if you really must, probavly best check Czech magazines (LEVEL, SCORE) from the Altar heyday in the early the 2000s instead of the internet in 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.184.77 (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And to speak of LEVEL, here's for example their interview with the Altar founder Martin Klíma (who later co-founded Warhorse, now probably the second biggest Czech dev currently) about his life and that actually is on the internet: https://games.tiscali.cz/rozhovor/martin-klima-od-draciho-doupete-k-warhorse-225575 (as the interviewer mentions, Altar "was one of the first significant Czech studios"). They go discuss why was Altar founded, the company's hardcore-gamer design principles etc. Also an internet transcript of the 2005 Level magazine interview on the end of Altar Interactive and the beginning of Altar Games "or something": https://visiongame.cz/martin-klima-o-konci-altar-interactive-clanek-level/

For further purpose of your in-depth research, Vladimír Chvátil was their early lead designer. Speaking of whom, here's for example an interview with him in Score magazine in 2005 about what happened to Altar at the time (and why he left): https://visiongame.cz/vision-r-i-p/ (and what exactly happened is that Altar interactive ceased to exist and was bought by Slavomír Pavlíček who turned it into Altar Games). Also Altar actually had began as a tabletop RPG designer and publisher in 1989 (https://games.tiscali.cz/rozhovor/ufo-aftermath-rozhovor-51986). None of this is not in the article right now, which is just a stub still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.184.77 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed history of the original ALTAR (notably the Czech publisher of D&D) and ALTAR interactive: https://visiongame.cz/altar-interactive-historie/ The original Altar (Nakladatelství ALTAR / ALTAR S.r.o.) actually still exists (under different management and actually in liquidation in 2020): https://altar.cz/ In addition to the TSR license they published also RPGs of their own, and even a long running Czech RPG magazine. Therefore I suggest merging the article into ALTAR to cover all three companies and to use old Czech game magazines as primary source for referencing content. For sources online, there seems to be a plenty for the Nakladatelství ALTAR online too, for example this retrospective that takes from the begimnings of D&D, to Altar, to Altar Interactive, to Klíma's and Chvátil's success with their new companies today: https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/veda/2720579-pred-45-vznikly-hry-na-hrdiny-svetu-daly-draci-doupe-kingdom-come-i-hru-o-truny One very long interview with Klíma about what took him from the fall of communism and licensing D&D to producing Kingdom Come: https://archiv.ihned.cz/c1-66698610-myslim-ze-tech-30-let-od-listopadu-bylo-uspesnych-rika-martin-klima-ktery-odstartoval-svym-projevem-revoluci (honestly he might use an article of his own). Also in a crossover with the Score magazine, the Score editor-in-chief Karel Papík (who later also made Cold War (video game)) had began his career at the original Altar (the RPG company): https://doupe.zive.cz/clanek/naostro-ptejte-se-karla-papika-tvurce-hry-cold-war After this AFD is over, you might copy all this to the articles talk page as to what people should work on and how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.184.77 (talk) 08:11, 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) 03:44, 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) 01:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify.
ping}}) czar 21:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Draftify per Czar's comments. There are apparently sources available but the reliability of each has to be verified independently. IceWelder [✉] 15:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per Czar to see if sourcing can be found.
HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 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.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Gary Schwartz (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been deleted twice, and nothing has changed since the last deletion, still just a working actor and voice actor who doesn't meet

WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found some coverage: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] (Minor: [[41], [42]) Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we're talking notability, then I must protest by saying that Gary Schwartz is a very notable entertainer, who's career in many fields is to be admired. Just because it's something simular to a failed attempt in the past, does not mean it can't be improved upon. I know I've mentioned this before, but I'll say it again, I didn't take the previous drafts and convert them into the current page.
- His significant roles include two characters Team Fortress 2, part of the main cast in the acclaimed series Zoobilee Zoo and recurring character Guss Tuno multiple stories in Star Wars: The Old Republic. The fan base of the characters he portrayed in TF2 has been strong for longer than a decade and many admire his talents to preform seamlessly. As mentioned before, his talents are not limited to just acting. A gifted acting coach, writer, author, comedian and founder such as he shouldn't go unnoticed.
- Many of the references on the current page, I can assure you, are from official websites of which he is associated with, wether he is a member or being interviewed.
- Also with many pages simular to this, such as John Patrick Lowrie and Rick May, on this website, how is it that this man, who's experience is just as prolific, if not more so, as theirs, then i see no reason to delete this page.
- I, as well as many others, would recommend that this page should not be deleted. However, should this page be improved upon, why not have a maintenance template instead of letting it go to waste?
  talk) 14:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete per nom, possibly salt for persistently wasting our time. Spy-cicle's "coverage" consists of passing mentions and PR releases. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the quality sourcing needed to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject notable enough to warrant his own page. Firstly, I think that Schwartz meets the
WP:SIGCOV: [44] a few paragraphs, [45] a full article about a theatre he founded, [46] a paragraph, [47] a full article, [48] two parapgraphs, [49] another full article. For these reasons that is why I believe he notable enough to warrant his own page. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 22:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~strike duplicate !vote.
talk) 23:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Don't lvote more than once. Repeating yourself isn't effective. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 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) 01:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every actor can have a Wikipedia page just because they exist. According to
WP:NACTOR
, the subject must have...

1. significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

2. a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

3. made a unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Which not one of have been satisfied. On top of it, most of the references in this article are useless and not reliable, and I can't find one reliable source myself. Coreykai (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reviewed the above sources and cannot see a case for
ping}}) czar 01:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Czar and others. Deleted two times already, third time's the charm. IceWelder [✉] 21:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd time is the charm and hopefully the last time for this subject (or at least for a while)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:43, 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

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Azad Samaj Party

AfDs for this article:

)

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

Notability not inherited. Just a political party recently created with no seats at national or state level. Zoodino (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

keep, its notable and has wide coverage.
talk) 23:31, 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) 01:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many references from reliable newspapers at the article. Takes time to gain seats at national or state level, since the party was created recently. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:TOOSOON, maybe notable in future but not now. And also notability is not inherited. Zoodino (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The above political party has already received news coverage from many major Indian newspapers and magazines – The Hindu newspaper, Hindustan Times (2 references), Outlook magazine, National Herald and many others. Wide range of news coverage already exists which is independent and verifiable by many reliable sources.

WP:N is already met.Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge and redirect with founder
WP:BEFORE#C4, quote "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term". Indeed this is a valid search term and this article should be merged and redirected to the founder's page. The party has got coverage due to its founder. When the party wins election victory the article can be -recreated from the page history.Walrus Ji (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Notable, good coverage from reliable sources. SUN EYE 1 11:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received coverage from reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Suneye1 and Pharaoh of the Wizards: can you please share which multiple significant coverage made you decide "keep", I am genuinely curious to know. --Walrus Ji (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:53, 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) 01:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A political party does not need to have seats in a legislature for it to have sufficient influence to warrant an article. As other users have pointed out, this party has been covered by numerous media outlets.
talk) 03:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
- LeBron4,If you click on those links you will find that the party has not been covered significantly in those articles. The founder has been covered with passing mention of the party. @Suneye1 and Pharaoh of the Wizards:, your silence leads me to assume that you could not find the sources with significant coverage. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:59, 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 keep. The sources provided by DoubleGrazing have remained uncontested. Sandstein 13:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Schjøll Brede

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

Subject of article is an entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them hence fails to satisfy GNG. A before search turns up empty. She fails to satisfy

WP:ANYBIO also. Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This person has delivered 2 TED-talks. Important figure with connections to billionaires.--Geysirhead (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two TEDx, not TED, talks. There are 100K+ of these by now, with 3,000+ TEDx events taking place annually. Not everyone who gives a TEDx talk (or even two) can be notable by that fact alone. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the results of a basic Google Search, she is a featured speaker or moderator at a number of industry-specific events. Together with the TED appearances and the Forbes recognition, I don't see an issue with notability, especially in her field.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Sadly, Forbes listings are neither reliable nor extraordinary. The TEDx talk might be a good source. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 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) 01:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could only find this coverage in a major Norwegian newspaper [50] (but it's rather puffery-ish), the other coverage in Norway being some trade-magazine interviews and then a radio interview. Delivering TEDx talks is not in itself notable. I feel one would expect to see more coverage of her, particularly neutral coverage and passing mentions in Norwegian media, were she or her product particularly notable. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep, the Morgenbladet and Dagbladet coverage pointed out below is sufficient. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is somewhat promotional in nature and the sources cited aren't great, but a quick search netted me at least these in the Dagbladet, Morgenbladet, Dagens Industri supplement, and Finansavisen, all RS AFAIK. Should be enough to establish
WP:SIGCOV. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 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) 01:41, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 13:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holliston Church

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

NN church building. No independent sources in article. Searching turns up little. It is listed in Emporis, and I found a blog article. Newspaper.com search finds plenty of routine mentions of people or events there. Nothing like the required in-depth sigcov. MB 21:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MB 21:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. MB 21:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MB 21:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this blog article suggests an interesting history, including being moved stone-by-stone (you would think the press would have picked up on that) and briefly used as a film set, though the church website itself doesn't make any mention of anything significant at all. It probably wouldn't be missed on Wikipedia if it were to be deleted, as it currently serves only as a listing. Wikipedia isn't a listing service. Sionk (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- So far I see little to indicate that this is not a typical local church, though particularly focusing on a particular ethnic community. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started the article after walking past the building and thinking it must be notable as it's visually striking, see the photos I took of it, and hoping someone else would come along later and expand the article so I could find out more about it. Sadly that hasn't happened in the last 6 years. Looking now, it is locally listed, and was considered for submission to NRHP in 2017, and possibly submitted in 2018. It was noted in An Arch Guidebook to Los Angeles by Robert Winter, and Downtown Pasadena's Early Architecture. There's also a description here. I think it meets notability requirements, albeit barely. I can expand the article with these references (and do another search for more) if it's kept. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017 document did not say it was "considered" for nomination; there was a sentence that said it "appears eligible". The 2018 document has a paragraph on the building, mostly about its early history before it was dismantled and moved. This is not a NRHP submission for the property, just a general history of early Pasadena. The two guidebooks each contain a short paragraph, mostly repeating the prior information. The blog has the most detailed info, but it is not a RS. I agree it looks like it should be notable, but I don't see the coverage. Until it is listed on the NRHP or written about elsewhere in more detail it doesn't meet GNG. MB 19:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: Thanks for the reply. I think it is sufficiently notable, but barely. Let's see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Keep or at least Wait. It does indeed seem like a church with an interesting history, but better sources should be found. I don't have time to do that right now. Archive.org has a number of hits, but it's not clear if they're referring to the same church, and it appears at least some of them aren't. If you can find who the architect was I suspect that would lead you to some sources as well. Also, it might be named wrong, when I searched for "Community Church at Holliston" which is what it calls itself, I started getting more hits. WestCD (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 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) 01:41, 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 BMC Software. Sandstein 13:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tideway Systems

)

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

I am unable to locate any references that meet the requirements for establishing notability as per

HighKing⁺⁺ 19:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn't covered by secondary sources and just in general isn't notable.
talk) 19:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge/redirect to BMC Software, which acquired Tideway Systems in 2009, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 10:20, 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 04:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to
notability, so deletion would seem the correct outcome. However the takeover is one of those mentioned in a table in the BMC Software article and the successor products are described in the text there, so a redirect may be appropriate (but any text merge would require strong sourcing). AllyD (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:40, 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. Sandstein 13:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arya Banerjee

Arya Banerjee (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:NACTOR. Sources are all in the context of her death. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Umakant Bhalerao Why the article is selected for Article For Deletion. As the article have enough news sources from the reputed news portal of India like- Indian Express,First Post,India Today,Times Of India,News18 ,Zee News,NDTV,Telegraph,Hindustan Times. I think this article should stay on wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souravforu (talk • contribs) 06:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment @
WP:GNG.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@Umakant Bhalerao: hi , so you open those article and if you read then you can clearly see there who is she and why she is famous. And also mentioned those film name which she did. Thanks

@
WP:BIO1E. What i was trying to say here was that i was unable to find any significant news coverage prior to her death. If you could provide any three best sources that show she has in-depth significant coverage i will be happy to reconsider.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@Umakant Bhalerao:, thanks

Comment So what establishes notability for this actress under
WP:NACTOR and where are the reliable sources? Snickers2686 (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Citing with nom. at this time. Most of the media coverage is related to her death. Kolma8 (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like the original contributor Souravforu was banned. Kolma8 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no media coverage outside of reporting of her death Spiderone 19:37, 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 no consensus. This discussion seems to be a mashup of a deletion and move discussion and isn't doing either of them particularly well. Since it seems like a page move might obviate the need for deletion, perhaps going through that process will get to a consensus outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the Evangelical Church in Latin America

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

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

Lots of the conclusions that the article gets are borderline original research. The author is well versed and certainly the information required a thoughtful investigation, however a lot of it still falls under OR. Also is redundant as other articles like
talk) 17:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Keep -- This is an important subject, but I am suspicious that this article is pushing a particular POV, with a political agenda, though I may be wrong. Freston looks to me like an academic work, so that if the article is firmly based on that book it is likely to be OK. Some of the origins of the Pentecostal church in south America results from members emigrating with a view to evangelising.
Christian Right seems largely to be about USA with attempts to co-opt from the politics of other countries. On the whole the present article is probably the best of the bunch. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Peterkingiron the two articles use to be one, I split them because with a change of name the original article stoped been about politics and was more about history/religion. The attacks on the pastors was not added by me tho. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, most of the important content is already in the other article. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ('and/or merge and redirect') per arguments presented and
WP:OVERLAP this is already covered. I do not find any reason for a stand alone article. There are multiple incoming links, the redirect(s) could be painful to work out. Jeepday (talk) 14:59, 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) 04:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article needs a better title if its going to be kept, "Rise of ____" sounds like a movie title worthy of a superhero/villain, not a Wikipedia article.
talk) 19:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Evangelical Christian politics in Latin America, it was renamed to the current one by P.I. Ellsworth after a move request by another user. I requested a move (you can see the discussion here but it was closed for no consensus reasons. Obviously I disagree with the current title and opposed the change to begin with. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Religion_in_Latin_America#Christianity, or else keep due to GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with ideas noted by
ed. ^put'r there 17:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, with different title: Per users
Evangelical political parties in Latin America" focuses on the political aspect of the movement while this article is more comprehensive in scope. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:12, 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 keep.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Svitlana Nianio

Svitlana Nianio (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 all 12 WP:MUSICBIO fails WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 06:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 06:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 06:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it is worth keeping because her music has received the Bandcamp album of the day and was on a of best issues of the year in The Quietus. In addition, she had a special on a Polish radio channel, was a part of a Andrew Weatherall mix, and had a spot in an issue of The Wire. Finally, she did perform internationally at the Counterflows festival in Scotland and multiple avant-garde festivals in Poland. She was also part of the duo Epik with noted Polish musician pl:Raphael Rogiński. Walkingpoodle (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the basis of your argument, you need to show that she meets Wikipedia:Notability_(music)...IMHO the article fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kolma8 (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand. Should I make this information more obvious? The Tsukor bila smert' group is a noted part of Ukrainian avant-garde history and the Elik group is famous enough to be advertised by the Wroclaw government, which should meet #6 of MUSICBIO. Her song being included as part of Weatherall's show which I think could meet 11 and the Polish special could meet 12. I think her part in this Amnesia piece on Koka Records might count as 1.Walkingpoodle (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:GNG either. I could live with this being draftified to allow the creating editor to find more and better references, but then there's no reason why that couldn't be done while this AfD is open. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Meets criteria of
WP:SINGER. Walkingpoodle outlined how this article met criteria 1, 6, 11, 12, of WP:MUSIC BIO. These assertions should be at least be refuted in some detail before the article is deleted, as I feel these assertions have some merit. However, as it stands right now, I see enough independent coverage to at least meet criteria 1: [51] [52] [53]. RHirsch1770 (talk) 23:56, 12 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) 04:56, 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) 01:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article meets criteria 1, 6, 11, 12, of WP:NMUSIC indeed. Also per WP:GNG. Sources are good.BabbaQ (talk) 01:19, 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 13:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surwar

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

The main theme of this article is not covered in modern reliable sources. The sources which are present and

talk) 06:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 07:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 07:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 07:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Important topic and passes
WP:GNG
.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, has decent sources but is not relevant. EPIC STYLE ^{(LET'S TALK)} 03:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already explained, the source which seems to be present here are from Rajputization article and nothing more is available about the non notable community itself.
talk) 06:51, 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. Sandstein 13:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Chiu Sen

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

Tagged for notability since 2015. I don't think that this passes

isn't inherited from the people you study music under or perform music for. The sources presented lack depth, the accolades are minor and the "Quotes" section doesn't belong in an encyclopaedic article. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see some non-trivial coverages The Hindu, Scroll.in, The Indian Express, The Better India, 2, and Times of India, which shows that he is notable in his field. He may fails
WP:BASIC as "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There are several more news articles not cited in the article. VocalIndia (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep in support of and per the research listed above by VocalIndia. Nice work-thank you.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:56, 9 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, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can anyone else weight in on this? Check out the sourcing presented?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:39, 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. Coverage in reliable sources is required for inclusion in Wikipedia (

WP:N). The "keep" side here does not only not provide such sources, but they admit that there are none even in Italian. I must therefore discount their opinions. Sandstein 13:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Italian Liberal Group

AfDs for this article:

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

A very small and unknown group of Italian liberal politicians practically irrelevant, I don't see the raison d'être of this page. The creator of the page said it could be improved, but nothing has changed since then, a 2 line page is left because nothing relevant can be added. There are other similar groups in other countries (Liberal International British Group, German Group of the Liberal International, Dutch Group of Liberal International, Canadian Group of Liberal International etc.), none of these have a page on Wikipedia: the only one present on Wikipedia was the Liberal International British Group, whose page was rightly deleted for lack of notability. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not sure this disussion can actually take place, as there was a similar proposal in April 2020 and the result was keep. Again, this subject has relevance and is quite notable from a historical point of view. For a long time, GLI was was the only member of the Liberal International from Italy. The article should be improved, but definitely kept. However, I am asking administrators to verify whether this discussion is consistent with Wikipedia rules. --Checco (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure is valid, a page can be renominated for deletion afer six months. The last time the page was kept with decidedly weak motivations. It is not enough to be an observer member of a political international to have encyclopedic relevance, first of all an organization should be known. This group is totally unknown, there is no news about it on the web. The page is written in 2 lines and you have not been able to improve it, although you have claimed that it can be improved. I honestly don't see how this group should be maintained on Wikipedia compared to other similar groups, which are probably even more important and organized. Besides being lacking in notoriety, it has practically not carried out any activity that can be considered worthy of note.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was and is a member of the Liberal International. I'll admit that the article can and should be expanded upon.--Autospark (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can something be encyclopedic about which there is nothing to say? It is useless for you two to say that the article can be improved if you are unable to do so. There are practically no sources on this group, I looked for them but I did not find them, an article to stay on Wikipedia should be based on independent external sources, in this case there are none. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco, @Autospark and everyone: I add that the most absurd thing is that this "group" promotes itself through the Wikipedia page! ([54]) On my view an encyclopedic organization would not need to rely on Wikipedia (even worse on a 2 line page). I believe this is something against the principles of Wikipedia itself. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:18, 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) 01:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The group doesn't meet the notability requirements. Despite promises of sources that show significant coverage in reliable sources, there are none in the article, and I could find none online. I am open to the fact that there might be some sources in Italian, a language I don't speak - if there are such sources maybe someone would like to show us them? Last AfD was closed via non-admin closure and really shouldn't have been, there weren't enough responses to form a consensus, it should have been relisted. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are no sources in the Italian language of this group either. However, I hope for further participation in this procedure, it would be strange if a page of a group without sources that promotes itself through the Wikipedia page is kept only because its creator Checco and the user Autospark (who practically always intervenes in his support, through what might seem an implicit alliance between the 2 users on these topics) have expressed themselves in favor of keeping. The mere fact that there are no sources and that it promotes itself through the Wikipedia page would seem to me sufficient for the deletion...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 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) 01:35, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 13:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HOSxP

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

no sources and wiki medicine editor has flagged this for possible deletion. I agree. Akrasia25 (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject of multiple conference papers.[55][56] --Paul_012 (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seeing as no evidence to support deletion has been forthcoming. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The google translation of the foreign language article implies notable exists (several awards). Google results also imply notable exist. Jeepday (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:17, 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) 01:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Really, there's no reason to relist this discussion twice after sources had been added to the article, which should have addressed the nominator (Akrasia25)'s concerns. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:47, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 13:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G.W. Graham Middle-Secondary School

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

Article does not meet

WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage in local news, the type all secondary schools would receive in local news. BEFORE revealed nothing that meets SIGCOV. There is no sourced content to merge; it could be redirected to School District 33 Chilliwack if there is consensus. This is a nice, normal, school, with local news coverage, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 16:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 16:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 16:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Keep: This school is/has transitioned from a middle school to an upper school in a well publicised School District reorganisation, which involved a name change. A little flexible googling finds loads of stuff some relating to expansion from 900 plus school to a 1400 school and new building work as the B.C. Ministry of Education has approved $23.9 million to fund an add-on that is scheduled to open in September of 2022. Eight mobile classrooms will be replaced as well. I am tempted to do a little editing to put the refs on the article.ClemRutter (talk) 16:20, 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) 01:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The bar for schools is
WP:NSCHOOL. The school exists, it is changing its structure and its name, that does not make it notable. Jeepday (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - perhaps we should keep or merged based on what ClemRutter. I don't lean either way. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 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) 01:34, 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. Sandstein 13:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn Gallery

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

Article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for meeting any guideline. Single source is not an IS RS. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 09:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 09:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 09:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable sources available to establish notability Spiderone 18:20, 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) 01:34, 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. Sandstein 13:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi Bizerk

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with the usual copy-paste edit summary that did not challenge the PROD rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Extremely minor character that, as far as I can tell, appeared in a single comic book issue. There is virtually real coverage of the character in reliable sources - even the The Superhero Book being used in the article as a source basically just name-drops him with no actual information, as seen here. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 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) 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:GNG, not adverse to a redirect if a suitable target can be found. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. From my search, a one-off character that doesn't even have a DC Wikia page. Appears in one story of one comic and dies. A potential redirect could go to Creeper (DC Comics), but I don't really see why anyone would be looking this character up. But I don't get the PROD complaining -- they are allowed to be removed for any reason (minus socking), no one owes you a policy explanation. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:08, 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) 01:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens Creek (Nebraska)

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

This article may very well be a duplicate of Stevens Creek (Salt Creek). Article does not meet GNG or GEOLAND "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." BEFORE showed nothing that differentiates this from Stevens Creek (Salt Creek). Sources in the article are a GNIS database entry that may be for Stevens Creek (Salt Creek) and a PDF listing of names that does not mention the subject. Considered A10 but decided to bring to AfD for discussion (if any). // Timothy :: talk 09:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone, I accidentally created this page as a duplicate of Stevens Creek (Salt Creek). I clicked through from the disambiguation page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens_Creek which unfortunately was formatted such to create a new page as opposed to referring to the old one. I fully approve of the page being deleted, I'll merge any relevant data from this page to Stevens Creek (Salt Creek). Also the second source, which is a list of names prepared by the local state historical society, does actually refer to the subject on page 29 of the PDF/listed page number 288, the document has been scanned from an older source and is not easily searchable. Thanks for catching this and sorry for the confusion. Linguistic Nerd (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic Nerd, no worries at all, its a easy mistake to make. I hope this isn't in anyway discouraging and thank you for your very gracious response. Best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 23:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
talk) 00:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Logs: 2020-12 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:32, 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

List of coats of arms of Polish nobility. Sandstein 13:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Allan coat of arms

)

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

No evidence that this coat of arms is in any way

Fram (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to the
list of Polish coats of arms. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 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) 01:32, 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

List of coats of arms of Polish nobility#A. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Antoniewicz coat of arms

)

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

No evidence that this coat of arms is in any way

Fram (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Has both notability issues and completeness issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the
list of Polish coats of arms. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 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) 01:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
List of coats of arms of Polish nobility#A, where this is mentioned. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:49, 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 redirect to

List of coats of arms of Polish nobility. Sandstein 13:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Azulewicz coat of arms

)

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

No evidence that this coat of arms is in any way

Fram (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to
List of Polish coats of arms. I have started a deletion discussion on Polish Wikipedia: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2020:12:19:Azulewicz. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 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) 01:32, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bell Twins

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

The subjects are known for their involvement in the recent Safety (2020 film). The sources used in the article are all interviews and the article a collection of miscellaneous trivia taken from the subject's answers. I haven't found anything independent. Apart from GNG, they fail WP:NACTOR, which calls for signifcant roles in multiple notable production. Perhaps, a redirect to Safety might be in order until they become notable in their own right. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one role is not enough to pass the guidelines of notability for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator; fails GNG and NACTOR Spiderone 11:44, 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. There's far too much off-topic commentary here and precious little substance; I am seeing a substantiated argument to keep based on

WP:GNG, and no convincing refutation of those sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Nay Shwe Thway Aung

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

csp

|username}}.

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

Non notable, fails

Wikipedia: Notability is not inherited. TDH Skypaper (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person. Just being related to the former dicator does not give automatic notability. 136.228.175.255 (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC) — 136.228.175.255 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. Phothudaw (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC) — 136.228.175.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Notability isn't passed on by your family. I initially thought Senior General's Grandson Orders Attack on Business Rival might have hinted at notability, but it was literally that he paid some goons to beat someone up once, not a military act. FalconK (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 10:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin, There are clearly
WP:SOCKLEGIT and first and second votes are come from the same range IP addresses with no edit on other pages, and also pretending as an account named Phyothudaw. I thought these votes would be tied up with the nominator. I have restored the notable information, removed by the nominator see Nay Shwe Thway Aung is considered one of the most hated people in Myanmar. Here is why! Many people are trying to delete him on Wikipedia. 65.18.127.85 (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC) — 65.18.127.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

Keep Nay Shwe Thway Aung is a public figure and notable tycoon who has earned a reputation as the most notorious member of the ruling family. He has been accused of ordering military officers serving as his assistants to carry out attacks on business rivals, according to this source from The Irrawaddy, a major media in Myanmar.

Moreover, plenty of significant coverage both included in the article and per search see Burmese Media Lead with Than Shwe's Favorites (A dead The Irrawaddy article, recovered with archive.org), Senior General's Grandson Orders Attack on Business Rival (a coverage from 2010), Than Shwe’s Grandson: Geek, Playboy or Gangster?, BBC repored his contribution between his grandfather and current state leader Aung San Suu Kyi, A gossip news from The Myanmar Times and gossip news 2 from The Irrawaddy, Publisher Sidelines CEO Who Alleged Threats by Than Shwe’s Grandson.

Furthermore A sig coverage titled: “ဒေါ်အောင်ဆန်းစုကြည်၊ ဖိုးလပြည့်နဲ့ သတင်းမီဒီယာ လောက” ("Aung San Suu Kyi, Phoe La Pyae and Burmese Media World") from

Mizzima, A coverage titled: "Daw Aung San Suu Kyi confirms meeting with Pho La Pyae", A sig coverage

titled: "Pho La Pyae said after meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi that he would help the country".

He was emphasizing documented in the historic book named "Than Shwe: Unmasking Burma’s Tyrant"

Moreover, some non-trivial coverage [57], [58], [59] shows that he is also a notable singer. He performed in the national level event "Miss Universe Myanmar 2019 Event" [60], [61], [62].

I think this amount of coverage allows this to pass

WP:IDONTLIKE. 65.18.127.85 (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

many more [63], [64], [65].

Comment The article was created by an user that blocked for sock. Above ip seem fishy as sock also ...... Matthew hk (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sock but first and second votes are clearly sock of nominator. 65.18.127.85 (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't want to use my account for fear of real-life repercussions (He once bulldozed a restaurant for disagreeing with him). That aside, in all fairness, the subject certainly does not meet
WP:RS or is about his granddad. For example: "Pho La Pyae arranges a meeting between Aung San Suu Kyi and Than Shwe." You can see that it's not him that is the focus of the article. He himself hasn't done anything notable. For example, there are millions of people who attack business rivals every day. Hundreds of millions write songs nobody ever watches. That doesn't mean they deserve an article on Wikipedia. By the way, based on what is known about his behaviors and the value he puts on Wikipedia article, the above IP is really fishy. I don't know about the nominator, but even if he has violated some rules, it shouldn't affect this deletion discussion. This discussion should be all about whether to delete the article. 73.170.255.4 (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment this user is a sock of nominator, he voted several times via IPs and account above. I would like to CU request. There are many IPs are trying to vote this discussion. He also created other SOCKLEGIT User:SSH remoteserver. He created many SOCKLEGIT accounts. Please see his edit history. He said "I don't know about the nominator", well well "Theif don't say He is a thief". 65.18.127.111 (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC) — 65.18.127.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Amm! btw Matthew hk and the nominator, Do not wait for the creator's vote! She already knows that this is a "sock trap" and she will not vote with account 😂. Because she dont create Wiki account for the long times. She asked me to let you know she was Ok that this article had been deleted. We (I'm not her but fri on FB) apologize for giving you a hope! Thanks for your waiting. 😘😆 65.18.127.111 (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming your identity and your connection to the creator. Note that we didn't out you. As for the rest, see
WP:DFTT. 73.170.255.4 (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Update: I misunderstood WP:GNG. It may meet GNG but still not notable. That's because there's nothing else he's known for. It's not good for an encyclopedic entry; as his grandad is out of power, nobody is interested in him, not now, not in the future. He said he's a musician. He doesn't meet any of the
WP:INHERIT, just having an association is not enough. He is defnitely not notable as an independent subject. 73.170.255.4 (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources. ‘Future Leader’ Suu Kyi Wins Than Shwe’s Support: Grandson
and more below

Moe, Wai (8 December 2010). "Than Shwe's Granddaughter Celebrates 4th Birthday with Rangoon Elite". The Irrawaddy.
The article notes:

Nay Shwe Thway Aung, also known as Phoe La Pyae Thwe, who many say is being groomed to succeed his grandfather.

"Jealousies Divide 'United' Junta". The Irrawaddy. 14 March 2011.
The article notes: "Reports from Naypyidaw suggest that several military officers dislike Nay Shwe Thway Aung because he has assumed a high rank within military circles despite the fact he has never served in the army and is reputed to be pretentious. Displeasure was also expressed by the military elite that Than Shwe's grandson was permitted to sit in the front row beside his grandfather at official photo shoots."

PAQUETTE, DAVID (March 2010). "The Coming Cyber War: The Young Pretender". The Irrawaddy.
The article notes: "Nay Shwe Thway Aung has various reputations. As the first and favorite grandson of Snr-Gen Than Shwe, the slim, bespectacled 18-year-old is already one of the country’s biggest celebrities––although he invariably makes headlines for all the wrong reasons."
...
In September, he was the subject of the gossip mills again when he and some accomplices reportedly trashed a café in Rangoon owned by a rival from another military family.

"Poe La Pyae Insulted Me, Says Traffic Policeman". The Irrawaddy. 12 April 2013.
The article notes:

Htin Kyaw, an activist who led demonstrations against the Burmese military regime’s sudden increase in fuel prices in August 2007, recently filed a lawsuit against Poe La Pyae at Kamayut police station because of the way the former junta chief’s grandson treated a traffic policeman.
...
Htin Kyaw added that slapping uniformed government service personnel on duty is considered a challenge to the rule of law in the country.

"Than Shwe's Grandson Appears With Burma's New Miss Universe". The Irrawaddy. 7 October 2013.
The article notes:

The grandson is no stranger to controversy and was at the center of a scandal in his teenage years when rumors spread that he was involved with certain Burmese celebrities and models. He was accused of kidnapping a top celebrity Wutt Hmone Shwe Yi when he was 17.
...
Nay Shwe Thway Aung was also implicated in a drug scandal in Rangoon in 2009. Two of his friends, Burmese tycoon Maung Weik and a son of Lt-Gen Ye Myint, Aung Zaw Ye Myint, were arrested after a member of the Than Shwe family found some pills—thought to be ecstasy—on Nay Shwe Thway Aung’s person.

Mon, Kyaw Hsu (26 October 2016). "Business Community Casts Optimistic Eye to the Future". The Irrawaddy.
The article notes:

At a meeting in Naypyidaw on Oct. 22 between State Counselor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and 158 of the country’s top-listed tax payers, the de facto leader addressed concerns over what would happen to “cronies.” Former junta supremo Than Shwe’s grandson Nay Shwe Thway Aung, were among who attended the meeting in Naypyidaw.

Ni, Ye (20 April 2010). "Burma's Watered Down Festival". The Irrawaddy.
The article notes:

Than Shwe’s favorite grandson, Nay Shwe Thway Aung, gets top billing on the festival circuit. The 19-year-old will appear at festivities in Naypyidaw, Rangoon and Mandalay.
...
According to a source in Rangoon, Than Shwe's grandson will host his own pavilion on Prome Road near Inya Lake in Rangoon, bypassing rules laid down by the Yangon City Development Committee (YCDC) and the SPDC Rangoon Division.

Moe, Wai (8 January 2009). "Did Than Shwe's Grandson Kidnap Model?". The Irrawaddy.
The article notes:
Nay Shwe Thway Aung is currently studying at Yangon Institute of Technology in Rangoon and is known to be Than Shwe’s first and favorite grandson. He has often appeared in Burma’s state-run media alongside his dictator-grandfather at state ceremonies and on trips.
...
However, Nay Shwe Thway Aung is no stranger to controversy. In October, reports circulated that he had used influence to get his girlfriend, model Nay Chi Lin Let, enrolled in
reliable sources to allow Nay Shwe Thway Aung aka Phoe La Pyae to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".Win Zaw Oo (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I don't know why you suddenly became active again after 2-months hiatus and made weird edits defending the junta's son when all your previous edits were decidedly against the junta (supporting Arakan Army). Did he give you a call, just in the way that he talked to another account on Facebook to create his article? Anyway, this discussion is not about listing sources. He had his fair share of "trivial listing" and gossping when his grandad was the junta head. For example, "Pho La Pyae went home with Than Shwe", "Than Shwe authorized Pho La Pyae to buy Man-U", etc. Note that the Irrawaddy News is NOT a realiable source in ALL cases. Back in the days, they often acted like the
WP:INHERIT is that those associations aren't just enough: "For example, just because Albert Einstein was a founding member of a particular local union of the American Federation of Teachers [Local 552, Princeton Federation of Teachers] does not make that AFT local notable." He's clearly not notable as an independent subject. None of his petty crimes (whlie "cool") is notable for than a week. None of his lofy claims, like the one to buy the Man-U, while "cool", lasted more than a nanosecond of public attention. Apart from that, he hasn't done anything notable. 73.170.255.4 (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Dear Sock with US VPN, Has he destroyed your family in the past? Are you making baseless allegations? I oppose your opinion that
WP:IDONTLIKE. 65.18.127.111 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment on hide contents Your translation skills are very poor. You use Google translation tool? these rude content that you point out are not included in my Burmese content, you can ask to native Burmese. Anyway I admit some words are uncivil and So I agree to hide them. 65.18.126.147 (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relax sis. I know who you are. 😂😂😂 You posted so much identifiable content on the internet. It's not good. I don't know you in real life but we have many mutual friends. I don't think this article meets WP rules but I'll stay quite and let admins decide. Goodbye. 73.170.255.4 (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable per GNG. Thanks BurmaWiki866 (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC) — 136.228.175.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The former ruling family destroyed many families in Myanmar. The nominator may be one of them. So please dont count votes from Burmese editors. The editors from other nations will determine his GNG or BASIC. 65.18.127.111 (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He first said above "That aside, in all fairness, the subject certainly does not meet WP:GNG.". Now he said "I misunderstood WP:GNG and the subject meet
WP:GNG but not notable and The Irrawaddy is not reliable and like Daily Mail." 😂 Hay guy what is your problem? Would you be happy if you deleted this article? I will revoke my vote. 65.18.127.111 (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I boldly strike-off the vote by 136.228.175.X ip range, which, does someone object the duck test? There is no such user called Phothudaw, or BurmaWiki866 but two of the three ips vote pretended it like one.... Matthew hk (talk) 21:13, 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) 01:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets
WP:THREE and more.Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 15:03, 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 13:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Brown career statistics

Dustin Brown career 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)

Fram (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 14:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a brief summary of notabile information can be put on the article on Brown, we do not need this comprehensive and detailed of information.14:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:30, 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. Sandstein 13:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvyn Hallifax

Kelvyn Hallifax (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:MUSICBIO. Mostly sourced to social media and passing mentions on websites that don't pass WP:RS. Was in some non-notable groups, made some non-notable albums, sang some backing vocals and produced some other records, but there's nothing here that goes into any more detail than a resumé, and I can't find anything better online. Richard3120 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Richard3120 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kelvyn Hallifax had a gig with White Boy Europe in the well-known German TV shows
AfD. [reply
]

Delete per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:26, 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. No consensus for a redirect Vanamonde (Talk) 03:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Pavilion

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

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

Unsourced
significant coverage. Unsourced and no sources forthcoming from searches of major newspaper databases. Previously PROD'd. czar 08:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 08:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar 08:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Smitty Werben 08:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Halifax Common. Unsourced for a very long time, and I couldn't find any significant coverage online - there might be some offline print sources I guess. It's a conceivable search term though, so suggesting a redirect to the relevant section of the Halifax Common article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This local venue closed two years ago and its only connection is that it was across the street. What part warrants mention in an article about the park? czar 05:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When it closed is irrelevant. As I said, it's a conceivable search time, and it's also already mentioned in the Halifax Common article Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it's too minor a feature to warrant mention. Anyone can add unsourced information to a Wikipedia article to "mention" anything. I've added a source for the construction project replacing the pavilion. czar 16:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of offhanded mentions, but no context about a music venue—nothing helpful to readers not already familiar with it. More discussion would be needed to support redirecting. (I say this as a regular
WP:RFD admin who has seen many such redirects deleted.) --BDD (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not a single citation, no SIGCOV. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 01:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails SIGCOV. Kolma8 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we're looking for sources to warrant a redirect/merge, I can offer these from The Coast: [68] and [69] or this from CBC: [70] (I'm not going to vote in this discussion because I live close to the former Pavillion even though I'd never heard of it till today.) Samsmachado (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:38, 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) 01:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Halifax Common#Facilities. No coverage on its own merits. PK T(alk) 17:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll make this formal. This will save us work at RfD down the road. --BDD (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article does not have SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and in depth, doesn't meet ORGCRIT. BEFORE showed nothing that would help.   // Timothy :: talk 02:46, 1 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the Belgian Armed Forces in 1989

Structure of the Belgian Armed Forces in 1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks
Fram (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete largely unreferenced and nothing showing the notability of 1989 for the Belgian Armed Forces. Mztourist (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article meets
WP:AOAL for keeping a list. 1989 is a major milestone year in the Cold War. Per CLN "Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks"   // Timothy :: talk 04:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

No-one disputes that 1989 was a major milestone year in the Cold War, but that is irrelevant. There is nothing that shows the notability of 1989 for the Belgian Armed Forces. Mztourist (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Belgium is a part of NATO, the end of the Cold War impacted all NATO nations militaries.   // Timothy :: talk 05:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of which falls under the Cold War and NATO, there is nothing that shows the significance of 1989 for the Belgian Armed Forces. Mztourist (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Belgian Armed Forces participated in the Cold War and were a core member of NATO; they were not bystanders but active participants. A war ending is a significant milestone for an involved military. The end of a war will result in significant changes for a military force.   // Timothy :: talk 12:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there was no actual war and this page doesn't say anything about the impact of the end of the Cold War on the Belgian forces. This is a snapshot without any underlying context. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time, CLN AOAL doesn't give a free pass to ignore
Fram (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability for this genre of military article seems to rely on ludicrous daisy chain of notability. This one is no different and no real argument has been made for why the exact structure of the Belgian army is specifically notable in this specific year. Just because it's part of an alliance that was notable doesn't confer said notability on every component part of that alliance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:GNG. As with many other discussions, there is nothing about the makeup of this particular army in this particular year that is notable enough to merit a standalone article. CThomas³ (talk) 19:19, 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 2014 Egyptian presidential election. Content may be merged from the history as necessary; no clear consensus for a merger here, but there is at least consensus this should not stand as an article, and a reasonable redirect target has been proposed. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for pimp

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Vote for pimp

Articles for deletion/Vote for pimp (2nd nomination)

Vote for pimp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

per
WP:NEWSBRIEF), no historical impact nor importance. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 17:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding difficulty seeing how this is notable. Seems like some random slogan that has had little effect on history. I mean,
2020VISION doesn't have its own article. Perhaps a Redirect to 2013 Egyptian coup d'état would be better? Foxnpichu (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect with a selective merge to 2014 Egyptian presidential election, where the phrase is mentioned in the section "Endorsements and opposition". As the nominator states this twitter hashtag doesn't seem to have had any sustained coverage and doesn't seem to have any notability outside of the 2014 election. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a Merge of
Vote for pimp. M. Hassan talk here 08:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@Mohamedhp: I'm not sure that there's enough coverage of the twitter campaign to require an entire section of it's own, but there does seem to be a few bits of content there that would be worth merging to make a paragraph or two in the article on the election. If the nickname has become something that has attracted long term coverage throughout his presidency perhaps it would be worth adding to Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, perhaps in the section Abdel Fattah el-Sisi#Political opposition? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:39, 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) 01:25, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kleio Valentien

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

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

BLP with hopeless sourcing. Now that Pornbio is depreceated this no longer seems to have any claim to inclusion. No objections to a suitable redirect to any suitable awards list.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete another article that is on a non-notable pornographic performer. I applaud the nominator for being willing to wade through the poor sourcing and see this article for the not supported by good sourcing mess it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent RS coverage needed to pass
WP:ENT. The references in the article are the usual interviews, press releases and porn award rosters. An independent search yielded only trivial independent RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shale gas rules and regulations

Shale gas rules and regulations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unencyclopedic article with very little useful information. Should either be deleted or merged into articles such as
talk | contribs) 00:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk | contribs) 00:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk | contribs) 00:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of facts vaguely related to shale gas, sourced to dead, unreliable, or primary sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
talk) 09:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment seems to largely overlap the topic of
Regulation of hydraulic fracturing (which addresses the process by which shale gas is harvested), but unclear if anything is worth merging in lieu of deletion. Agricolae (talk) 17:05, 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
USS Myers (APD-105). Vanamonde (Talk) 02:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Merton B. Myers

Merton B. Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

A Silver Star definitely doesn't satisfy
WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Myers (APD-105), the ship named after Merlton B. Myers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ship article. Not independently notable, is already mentioned as the namesake of the ship on the ship article, so there is nothing to merge. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ship. Fails
WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:13, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merton A. Richal

Merton A. Richal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

One Navy Cross doesn't satisfy
WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Doesn't meet
talk) 09:21, 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.

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_December_25&oldid=997918705"~~

[1] "Nathan Larson's Biography". Vote Smart. Archived from the original on 2018-06-07.

[Huff-2] Huffington Post. Archived
from the original on 2018-06-07.

[USA-3] William Cummings (June 2, 2018) [June 1, 2018]. "Nathan Larson is a pedophile and a white supremacist. And he's running for Congress". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04.

[Fauq-4] Fauquier Times-Democrat. Archived
from the original on March 17, 2018.

[Indep-5] Andrew Buncombe (June 2, 2018). "Self-described white supremacist and paedophile running for US congress from his parents' home". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04.

[6] Prof.Helen McCaffrey (2010-04-11). "The Justice of God". Wgmd.Com. Archived from the original on 2011-07-18. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

[7] "'America's worst pedophile'?". The Week. 2010-02-24. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

[8] "Earl Bradley – Worst Pedophile". CALLS FOR JUSTICE. 2010-03-22. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

[9] "Dr. Earl Bradley sex case ignites outrage". The News Journal. 2010-02-24. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

[10] "Dr. Pedophile". Article.wn.com. 2010-02-27. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

[11] Velez-Mitchell, Jane (February 24, 2010). "Details Emerge of Pediatrician Accused of Abusing Patients (Transcript)". CNN.com. Retrieved July 29, 2014.

[12] "Earl Bradley - Photos and News". New York Post. 2010-03-24. Archived from the original on October 23, 2012. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

[13] "Pedophile pediatricians follow patterns". Daily Record. 2010-05-02. Retrieved 2010-05-18.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]