Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Patterson

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

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

non-notable basketballer, never played for the majors, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article satisfy
  WP:GNG , the league (Proliga Portugal) for which the player is playing is considered as the second most important basketball league in Portugal^[1] . The page for CA queluz has not been updated since a while ,below I have given a brief info about the team.Until 2007 CA Queluz played in Liga Portuguesa de Basquetebol I Divisão which is considered as the third league in Portugal.On October 2020 , CA Queluz started playing in the Proliga .On 24 October 2020 ^[2] ,Marcus Patterson played his first game in the Proliga where he played for his team CA Queluz^[3].— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Starkbutler (talk • contribs) 04:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep The subject does appear to have played professionally and thus meets the subjective criteria. ─
  ^(talk) 08:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Playing professionally is not enough to pass any criteria. A basketball figure is presumed to be notable if he passes
  WP:GNG at all. The only sources I find seem to be, as Praxidicae has pointed out, paid articles on spam sites. Alvaldi (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• We cannot directly say that the player has not appeared professionally , as its not listed here
  WP:NBASKETBALL but we cannot ignore that Proliga (Portugal) is considered as the second most important league in Portugal .Player such as Nate Bowie has played in this league .The sources pointed out by Praxidicae may be Promotional and were removed instantly but there are other sources which help the subject to merit an article on Wikipedia. Starkbutler (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It would be helpful if you would, you know, actually provide those sources. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 13:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references are cited in the article and here are few more ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

A player can be notable regardless of the league he plays in. But playing in the

WP:GNG. The Bronx Times and Portugal Resident articles both seem to be independent of the subject but are as far as I can see both are from minor publications and both articles are published within a month of each other. (The Bronx article also seems to be the same as this one). I'm not seeing significant coverage over a significant period of time. Alvaldi (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

A coverage is a coverage rather than it being from a minor or highly reputable source, the main thing is that the article should be unbiased and cover the subject in a neutral manner(

WP:BIASED). I think time frame of the article doesn’t matter as it not mentioned anywhere as a criteria.Here are few more sources I found on the internet ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} Starkbutler (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Coverage is not just coverage. The subject needs to have coverage in reliable and independent sources over a sufficiently significant period of time. Both the [3] and [4] are sponsored articles. The theonlinebeacon.com article and troyrecord.com article both only mention him once. Alvaldi (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Fails
  Mid Day, and (9) this from the Deccan Herald. Also, (10) this, (11) this, and (12) this are significant coverage but I'm not sure if Portugal Resident, "InstaBulletin", and Algarve Daily News are reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Also, the article was submitted to AfD less than four days after creation, a bit quick on the trigger given the extent of coverage turned up in a simple Google search. This article can and should be improved, but deletion is not called for. Cbl62 (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every single source you've given is unreliable or paid for. Not a single one is independent nor is it coverage. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have significant coverage from multiple independent news sources -- an extraordinary and unusual level coverage for any athlete. At first glance, your contention that all of this coverage is "unreliable or paid for" strikes me as preposterous. But I am open to hearing your evidence: Do you have any actual evidence that this very substantial coverage across a dozen or so media platforms is all paid for??? Cbl62 (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's almost as if you didn't read any of the sources you posted this is a brand post which is a PR piece. An interview, an established blackhat SEO site, unless of course you believe a PR firm writing about someone is genuine journalism, another established blackhat SEO site, another blackhat SEO site (most of which are just copies of other sources.), brand/sponsored content and the rest have already been discussed. All of this can be yours for a low-low price GRINCHIDICAE🎄 08:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: Thank you for your reply. A few points in response:

(1) FWIW, your comment that "it's almost as if you didn't read any of the sources you posted" comes across as snide and does not aid in persuading the target audience.

(2) I actually did examine the sources and found it odd that news outlets in South Asia would be reporting on the topic. Checking further, I found that Wikipedia's articles about the

Mid Day

describe them as legitimate, even award winning, news outlets. That said, I appreciate your further link to digitalprworld and agree that these sources should be discounted.

(3) As for Yahoo! News, our own Wikipedia article on the outlet confirms it as a reliable source, even noting that in 2019 it was ranked as the sixth most reliable global news source, ahead of Fox News. That said, I take heed of the reference in digitalprworld and find such practices to be quite discouraging. [If Yahoo! News has sunk to such depths, should we mention that in our Wikipedia article about the outlet?]

(4) Your claim that this piece should be discounted as an interview is invalid. The piece is an in-depth biographical profile on Patterson. The fact that the article includes a handful of quotes from the subject is normal journalistic practice and does not render it non-independent or unreliable. (I am tempted to say "it's almost as if you didn't read" the article, but I'll resist doing so.)

(5) You incorrectly assert that "the rest have been discussed". In fact, you have completely ignored significant coverage in many of the sources cited above, including: (a) "Bronx native discusses basketball and mental health amid COVID-19", AM New York; (b) Former Sage basketball player has new focus", Times-Union; and (c) "Professional basketball player gets help from local trainer to get career back on track", Central Jersey newspaper group.

(6) My conclusion on a further review: Your AfD nomination was made in good faith and raises legitimate concerns about "blackhat" sites. However, this is an athlete who has an interesting story - climbing from The Bronx and Division III to potential rookie of the year in Portugal. That story has garnered significant attention, and even excluding the "blackhat" sites that you highlighted, the coverage remains significant and warrants a "keep" determination. Cbl62 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a genrically trustable source publishes it doesn't mean that every piece is reliable and more importantly, you are conflating reliability with independent coverage. You're trying to argue that press releases and sponsored advertisements make for independent coverage and you're quite simply 100% wrong. Being interesting doesn't make one notable and I am not going to elaborate on this for an administrator. Your reading of my tone is irrelevant. Cheers. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not conflated anything. Nor am I arguing that sponsored advertisements count toward notability. It appears that you have fallen into the trap (one that it's easy for all of us do at time) of digging in your heels rather than keeping an open mind to coverage that may have been overlooked at the time of the nomination. Cbl62 (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. FWIW, there is an article dedicated to Marcus Patterson in Yahoo!, which is a major website.[5] desmay (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, no that's self published/paid for trash. It's the equivalent of a press release, except worse because it's not required to be accurate. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article on Yahoo is from the website Latestly.com (see here), a website where you can apparently pay someone on Fiverr.com to write an article about you. Same goes for Mid-Day. Actually, most of these sites that have articles about him are the same sites you can pay someone on fiverr.com an article about you on. Alvaldi (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alvaldi: Yes, unfortunately @Cbl62: needs to get up to speed on paid for article writing services, their unfortunately poorly researched Keep vote here does them a significant dis-service. Nick (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: As noted above, I do not approve of paid article writing services and therefore would discount some of the coverage. That said, there has been no contention that the following four feature stories are paid: [6], [7], [8], [9]. I have no stake in this article and am simply calling balls and strikes as I see them. Best, Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - likely
  undisclosed paid-for spam, given the black hat SEO sourcing. I've blocked the creator for spamming. MER-C 15:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Most of the sources they've used were heavily spammed on Wikidata last year and was choice of most spammer or paid editors. Also this player doesn't seems to satisfy notability criteria. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NBASKETBALL only applies to leagues explicitly listed, not just any pro league.—Bagumba (talk) 11:09, 3 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. – Joe (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Shribman

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

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

See talk for full details. Article was created as a promotional piece and continues to be edited to support the promotional activities of the subject. Infowars420 (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Leaning toward delete. There are a lot of citations, but the quality and depth of sourcing are deficient. Many of the news articles referenced just have brief mentions of his activities, rather than coverage of his background, and the festival lineup/his band's promotional material do nothing for notability. He's not a scientist (despite the peculiar insistence some of those articles have in calling him such), so it's harder to gauge whether this is just TOOSOON. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources are all either not reliable sources or mentions in passing. A google news search shows a couple articles discussing a documentary he made but nothing more; no significant coverage of him personally in
  WP:GNG. Something is fishy, however - the page was created by a likely COI single-purpose account User:Magd2884, but the nominator is also a single-purpose account with no contributions to Wikipedia besides the PROD and AfD process on this article. Be wary, but if I stumbled upon this article I'd've brought it here myself. FalconK (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per FalconK. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Disagree on the proposal for deletion. In an ecological emergency, should we be deleting environmentalists and science communicators? Furthermore, what makes an environmentalist noteworthy? Is it the impact of their work or its coverage? MIT Media Lab’s Pantheon study makes it clear that cultural noteworthy-ness / coverage is moving away from thinkers and towards “celebrities”. Should Wikipedia follow this trend too? Looking at articles of other science presenters Samantha Yammine, Lee Constable, Emily Grossman, the subject is of similar noteworthiness. Agreed on the need to improve this article. User:Infowars420, I note that you take general opposition to people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, and I appreciate this; it’s important. However, what is the purpose of an article like this? It does seem to have begun as autobiographical… but one questions to what end. It does not seem to be self-promotion for personal gain – most of his environmental work seems to be voluntary, and he is running an educational charity, supported by a grant from the UK government. Meanwhile, his work is having a significant positive impact. User:JoelleJay, to your point about “scientist”, the OED defines a scientist as a person who is studying or has expert knowledge in one or more of the natural or physical sciences, which is fulfilled by the subject. The Science Council has a narrower definition on their website, which seems to be disputed by… scientists. I will work on an edit today, and gather better sources. Full disclosure – I am part of a small community working to support science communicators. JHay556 (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment applied more to the requirements for

academic notability--if he was a tenure-track professor there would be a good chance his credentials would meet that notability guideline in the future. That said, he does not perform scientific research and his expertise is disputable (a master's (or PhD with no strong followup publication record after) does not and should not establish someone as an "expert"--this would confer dangerous degrees of authority to unqualified people). Especially in environmental science (and vaccines etc.) we should personally promote stringent criteria for whom we call an "expert", as having any wiggle room leads to media propagation of inaccurate descriptions and popular acceptance of unqualified and less-qualified opinions. That doesn't diminish the importance of environmental activists and communicators. You don't need advanced scientific understanding to communicate awareness and information to the public, and being able to do so in a way that reaches the most people is extremely valuable. This is why we need skilled science journalists and activists who can engage communities across socioeconomic and age strata; just because they should not be consulted as experts on the topics they disseminate doesn't mean they aren't a critical component of science education. If this guy has received significant coverage for his science communication, he could very well meet the general notability criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Agreed on these points Joelle, though I'm also not proposing that we list him on Wikipedia as a scientist, hence my limiting to science communicator and environmentalist. I was more replying to you about why external articles might have written about him in this way. JHay556 (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Fellow Wikipedians, inviting feedback and collaboration on today's edits of this article. JHay556 (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria for notability are pretty well established by consensus and we do not have a consensus policy of making exceptions based on whether someone's contributions are for a humanitarian purpose. To keep this article, we would need a showing that Mr. Shribman meets the criteria described in any of
    WP:N. I appreciate your attempt to improve the article, but it remains that the article relies heavily on unreliable sources such as the Facebook page of his own organization. I'd also note that an article in Wikipedia is not a reward for doing good work, it's documentation of what reliable sources have said about the subject. That is one reason we need significant coverage in third-party sources. Also, @User:JHay556, I hate to ask, but do you also have another account? It's unusual to see so much involvement in an AfD from so many accounts that have few edits to other areas of Wikipedia. FalconK (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure what you mean by "relies heavily on unreliable sources such as the Facebook page of his own organization" though - only one reference (27) links to the subject's organisation's Facebook page, and that because it is a video of Caroline Lucas saying the quote. The other Facebook links are all to the organisations / people in question. As for reliable sources / broader coverage, I've cited the Times, News.com.au and NewsHub, which are among the most respectable news sources in the UK, Australia and New Zealand respectively. Other sources include the Metro of London, VICE Media, the Edmund Hilary Fellowship. As for the notability guidelines, if the words "entertainer" and "entertainment" were replaced with "environmentalist" / "science communicator" and "environmentalism" / "science communication" then I don't see why this article, like the others linked above, shouldn't stick, especially with the global context we are in. And yes, just this account - I don't usually do Wikipedia, though some colleagues have been working on other articles and giving me advice on how to do so, so I'm working on this. JHay556 (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on significant coverage such as BBC and The Times, it should stay. I also think anyone that gets invited to speak at TEdx is well vetted and must be an expert in his field to be invited to speak in such a well known conference. BTW, I removed some promotional language and it may need a little more work to make it less promotional sounding. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of
  to require a total re-write. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -
  WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:10, 7 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) 18:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Ronald Gordon Mackay

Duncan Ronald Gordon Mackay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem to meet GNG or NSOLDIER. one decent article of coverage in a source of questionable reliability, I found no other sigcov that would establish GNG Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:GNG, nothing notable. Mztourist (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retain The article was previously recommended for deletion in July 2019 and overturned. The relevant discussion appears here>> User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_6 Mackay was the last Scot to be killed in World War 1. It seems that he was the last airman to be killed in combat. 18 members of the Royal Air Force died on 11th November, some in training and some not aircrew. Shipsview (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What RS says that he was the last Scot to die in WWI? Not that that is in any way notable. He didn't die in combat, he died of wounds, as did presumably dozens of others on Armistice Day. Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the last Scot, but also the last British aviator to be killed. So, unique on both counts. Shipsview (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT, provide RS that he was the last British aviator to be killed. Even if you can its doubtful that that establishes notability. Mztourist (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no evidence of an aviator being killed with the last hour after MacKay being shot down, so one must suppose that he was the last. I don't think that the Germans said 'Ach! This is the second last airman we will shoot down!' Here is further reading material: a) https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1040606/last-scot-fall-first-world-war-armistice-day b) https://worldwar100.co.uk/portfolio/captain-duncan-ronald-gordon-mackay/ c) https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/13022-capt-duncan-ronald-gordon-mackay-raf/ Shipsview (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"One must suppose" isn't good enough for a weak notability claim. Express is of dubious reliability, worldwar100.co.uk's "Reputably the last Scot to be killed" isn't definitive and www.greatwarforum.org is not RS. Anyway as I said previously being the last Scot to die isn't sufficiently notable, otherwise we'd have to have pages for the last of every nationality to die in the war. Also he died of wounds after the Armistice, so do you have an RS that he was the last Scot and/or RAF airman to die of wounds? I really doubt it. Mztourist (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again: d) http://kenley-rafa.org.uk/RAFA%20Newsletter%20Nov-Jan%202019-woe-1.pdf e) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguished_Flying_Cross_(United_Kingdom) (though not sourced).
So, last Scot, last pilot and the only Empire serviceman buried in the Joef Communal Cemetery, Meurthe-en-Moselle. How unique is that? And QED notable.
Let's now wait to see what support the two cases get. Shipsview (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RAFA Association not RS, particularly saying in one para he was killed in action and then in the next saying he died of his wounds, it can't be both. If it was true it would be covered in multiple RS, but its not. WP cannot be used as a source, particularly as you added McKay's entry yourself in July 2019: [10]. Being the only burial of a particular nationality doesn't establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even without considering whether we can verify this, there seems to be some confusion between uniqueness and notability. Just being unique does not equal notability, there needs to be

significant coverage in reliable sources, which has not been shown. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Apologies for confusing you. I have already pointed out that the Wiki entry was unsourced! I was just attempting to show that there was another relevant entry.

Perhaps the article should be moved to Death of Captain Mackay with more focus on that? His life was barely notable, but his death, in my opinion, is. As you say, uniqueness does not necessarily equate to notable. His death on being shot down from the skies over German-held territory resulted in a combination of events that are unique both in themselves and collectively unique, and therefore notable. An example might be the soldier who is awarded a bar to his Waterloo medal is not notable, but if he earns four bars he becomes so. Shipsview (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, he wasn't notable in life and dying of wounds doesn't make him notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try responding to what I wrote, please, to make your comment relevant. I did not list dying of wounds! Shipsview (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did read what you wrote and see nothing in his wounding, death or burial that is independently or cumulatively notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I am not sure if the one award he has won will satisfy
  WP:SOLDIER, but he does not have significant coverage. Given this is prior to the 1918 and not too much available online, we can't assume there will be other news, unless someone does the research and posts the info.Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - searches are difficult due to the era in which he lived and died. There is some coverage, as on page 1389 of Flight International (Volume 10, Issue 2), but it seems to be more of simply listing those who have died. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 7 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 34th Battalion (film)

The 34th Battalion (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreleased film that does not appear to have an imminent release and does not have a particularly notable production, should not have a standalone article per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence that production even began, let alone being ready for release. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. A good example of a project that was developed but never got anywhere and does not warrant its own article. No objection to a sentence about the attempt at 34th Battalion (Australia) if it can fit somewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We really need to push back against the claim that things that have not been released are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Found no coverage on google. Fails
  WP:NFILM. Lord Grandwell (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:TOOSOON. Subject to soft delete, this can be created again later. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 6 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. BD2412 T 02:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Kalamuri

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

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

Our article on the Military Medal suggests that over one hundred thousand have been awarded. There's no indication of any other coverage here that establishes notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:SOLDIER. No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, no significant coverage to satisfy GNG - Dumelow (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG. Lord Grandwell (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails per
  WP:V. Other than the two sources cited, this person can not be found on Google news, newspapers, scholar, or books. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 6 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) 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edin Lynch

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

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

Following a discussion started in

He was on the books of Kilmarnock last season but, as per Soccerway and GSA, he didn't make it off the bench in the league and his only cup appearance was for the youth team. Spiderone 22:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As it has been decided that Scottish Championship appearances do not automatically meet notability requirements, then this does fail on grounds of notability. The player is young enough that this may change in the future and he will meet notability guidelines, but for now the best thing is to delete the article. Dunarc (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a fully professional team and as not notable at the moment. Lord Grandwell (talk) 08:13, 6 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) 23:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pjero Andrijašević

Pjero Andrijašević (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 futsal player with a very brief career in football. Does not meet

• [11] - a brief announcement of him signing for a futsal team
• [12] - another article about him signing for a futsal team with a brief comment from the player himself
• [13] - trivial mention
• [14] - trivial mention about him playing in a memorial match
• [15] - mentioned alongside a few other players, not significant coverage
• [16] - this is the source used in the article. The mention is very brief. Please note that notability is not inherited from his two famous relatives as per
  WP:NOTINHERITED Spiderone 21:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a total failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Stjepan Andrijašević with prejudice against recreation. (It has been recreated after prod deletion.) Geschichte (talk) 03:18, 6 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantine Konopisos

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

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

Meets the letter of NSOLDIER as a rear admiral (though I couldn't verify that), but badly, badly, fails GNG -- to the point that I could barely verify he existed. He seems to have completely avoided getting significant coverage, and the fact that he may have been a rear admiral doesn't change that. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete while his rank arguable satisfies #2 of
  WP:GNG, totally non-notable life. Mztourist (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - regardless of
  WP:FRINGEy UFO titles but the ones that are searchable don't even mention him, and the only Google hits are mirrors of either Wikipedia or Findagrave, thus comprehensively failing it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There is no such consensus, just being a flag officer does not establish notability. WP:SOLDIER is an Essay that lists categories presumed to have SIGCOV in multiple RS, but SIGCOV in multiple RS does not exist here. Mztourist (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete was not of flag officer rank. There is a general consensus suggesting that those who hold that rank are notable, but some cases probably would not pass stringent GNG analysis. Also some countries have very high number of flag officers per military size, so it does not seem to mean the same thing in all countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Without a source to show he was actually a
  WP:GNG. Lord Grandwell (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:V. We can verify he was a rear admiral when he died, but not when he was in active duty service. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 6 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) 23:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 CA Oradea season

2017–18 CA Oradea season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:49, 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sneź Veljanovska

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

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

PROD was added by

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since the nominator did not include it, here is the deprod rationale: "According to its article, this is the top-level national league. By insisting that it is not "professional", you are making the sexist argument that women can never be notable in this sport." In the future, I'd suggest including this pertinent information when converting a PROD into an AfD. pburka (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since you mentioned it, the deprod argument is a total fallacy, since there are loads and loads of women who are notable in this sport, but Veljanovska does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per norm. Lord Grandwell (talk) 08:17, 6 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.

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

)

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

Prod contested. Rationale was: Seemingly "The definition of a bio only notable for one event. I don't see any sigcov establishing GNG." Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:1E. Mztourist (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per Mztourist as an appropriate alternative to deletion. I note there are more sources in the Evans article than the von Richthofen article on Evans (specifically about his alleged killing of von Richthofen) so some of them may be able to be merged across. Deus et lex (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly passes
  WP:1E concern is mooted by the statement there: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. I'm pretty sure 'the death of the Red Baron' counts enough as a highly significant event to pass that, and his role in it is, ah, somewhat defining. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Bushranger I’d be curious to see the coverage here that you think clearly establishes GNG. Additionally, while its great that you think the event is highly significant, the rest of us are left out here wondering why— sure it’s significant, but highly? I’d contest that assertion. Even if it is considered significant, we still' need sigcov in independent reliable sources that establish their role as significant, not just what you are pretty sure about counting. I’m not seeing any indication there’s more worth saying about Evans from an encyclopedic standpoint then the paragraph already included in Richthofen‘s article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 5 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Pastorino

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

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

Only reference is her own website. Rathfelder (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can find accurate, reliable, notable reporting, which I can't upon a quick google.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is a true outrage that an article sourced only to the subject's own website has survived for over 15 years. We are still paying for the original sin of Wikipedia, valuing quantity far, far more than quality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an
  WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 6 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.

Rosalind Hicks

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

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

Notability is not inherited, no notability outside of her relationship with her mother. No in-depth coverage on her. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Famous parents do not preclude notability. In fact, the attached celebrity makes it more likely. Her long, unpaid obituaries in The Scotsman, The Telegraph and The Guardian are clear evidence of her own notability. pburka (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI have to agree that unpaid obituaries in newspapers with significant circulation is a strong sign of notability. Of course, she's not even close to being as notable as her mother (few people are!) but she did have a major impact on the perception of her mother and the adaptations of her work. Pichpich (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the obituaries, which are pretty well the best sources in newspapers, as they cover the whole of a subject's life rather than one particular news event.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I would agree with the view that the number and scope of obituaries is a clear sign of notability. Also her influence on later adaptations of her mothers work is arguably a further sign of notability. Dunarc (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - editors and literary executors can be notable in their own right, which is shown by
  significant coverage upon her own death. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 6 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 Reason Studios and Merge. Content may be retrieved for a merger from the history. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reason (software)

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

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

No independent sources other than reviews all from the same source and I'm not seeing anything else, though the name makes it hard to search for. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Can't find any notable sources on it either from the quick search I did ('reason music software') and its not like the content in the page itself is substantial. SacredSunflower (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Merge it into Reason Studios, of which the software is its principal project. Foonblace (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Has reviews in PCMag, American Songwriter, and Sound on Sound, and passing mentions in NYtimes [17] and WSJ [18][19]. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Definitely notable,but it’s too short and doesn’t give info about history etc.--
  talk) 17:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• (nom) After seeing the sources, I think this is borderline notable. merge to Reason Studios is what I now think is the right outcome. Hobit (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: although this software is up to version 11 and has some interesting references (PCMag, American Songwriter) the article itself is a little too bald and has insufficient information. Hence, Merge to Reason Studios, as above. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:24, 7 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) 23:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taha Mourid

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

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

Assertion of notability from 2 alleged appearances for Wydad but this is not supported by the article's sole reference. Also does not pass

Soccerway has nothing down for him. Nor does Football Database. Sofascore records four times when he has been an unused substitute. World Football has u17 games only. GSA confirms that he has only played u17 for Morocco and has not yet got off the bench for his club. Spiderone 19:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, find some sources which have been used to establish notability for other footballers and being called up to the Morocco under 20 squad should count for GNG. Northern Escapee (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not even come close to meeting our ludicrously broad inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 6 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) 19:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SDSS J1408+0257

SDSS J1408+0257 (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 similar article was deleted under a slightly different name in June 2018 (SDSS J140821.67+025733.2, which is now a re-direct to this article). Since then, nothing has changed: the object has a single line mention in the catalog paper, and as discussed in the original AfD, this is almost certainly a spurious measurement and a non-notable object. Being included in a catalog does not make something notable. It also should not be on the list of "most massive black holes".

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: based on a Vizier lookup for reference #4, setting MBHCIV > 11.0, this object does have the highest value. Does that make it notable? There's no dedicated scientific study of this quasar; it's just one of 280,000 studied by the SDSS. Praemonitus (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The object does mot appear to be notable, other than the fact that it may have the most massive black hole ever, but i do not think it should exactly be deleted. Kepler-1229b talk

Merge to what though? I've removed it from the list of most massive black holes, because it is very likely an unreliable measurement. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of quasars. Kepler-1229b talk

• Delete If the object had the most massive supermassive black hole known, I think that alone would easily establish notability. But this object's mass estimate is just one in a huge number of objects processed. It could be just a noisy measurement. The paper containing the mass estimate itself casts doubt on this object's mass value in the paragraph above section 4 (Summary). If it is a really solid candidate for the most massive, there's a good chance someone will do a followup study to prove that, investigate the object in detail, and publish a paper about it.PopePompus (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass
  WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment This article might help to clarify the situation. Aldebarium (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Nice work. Now we just need someone to publish a paper on galaxy "sizes" (however defined) so we can lay that one to rest, too. ;-) - Parejkoj (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work spotting that article, Aldebarium. It looks like a strong case for delete now.PopePompus (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure, I am one of the authors, and the paper was written to try to settle this issue once and for all so we can avoid having this discussion again. To avoid COI questions I won't vote on this deletion poll. But the bottom line is that the huge mass estimate was just based on a mistaken measurement from a big catalog. Aldebarium (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a sentence at the end of the first paragraph pointing to your paper. Even though I suspect this article will be deleted, I think it's best not to have erroneous info on Wikipedia even for a short time.PopePompus (talk) 22:08, 7 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. I think there is just about concensus to delete here, certainly the extra week didn't bring any other significant sources to light. Fenix down (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Florentino

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

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

Article was sent to draft for good reason but has been moved back to main space without going through AfC.

Contested PROD with reason 50 starts for a team indicates some sort of notability

Initial reason for PROD was Not notable enough for an article; when searching Spanish news sources, there is only brief coverage of her signing for Real Madrid. No

I have done a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes the
  WP:GNG per [20] [21] [22] [23] and there is more. gidonb (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The only decent source is the first one, in my view. The rest is just routine transfer rumours or transfer announcements Spiderone 09:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rest also includes

WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Which parts, sorry? I can see that they confirm the agreed price was 20 000 euros to Albacete. Another source confirms that she is a centre back and says that she is fast. I wouldn't be opposed to this being sent back to draft again and going through AfC. It shouldn't really have been moved back, in my opinion and I'll be surprised if it would pass even with these sources added. Spiderone 11:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spiderone, please note that all four articles were signed by journalists. Routine articles are often assigned to press agencies. Here actual people went into such detail as analyzing the actual playing style of Claudia Florentino! An article should be kept once we know that

WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I would still probably lean more towards restoring this in the draft space rather than main space but we may have to agree to disagree. In any case, the Spanish league is joining

WP:FPL as of next season so players such as Florentino will soon achieve the presumed notability at NFOOTBALL provided she stays in this league. Spiderone 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per
  WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 57 15:17, 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 FC Barcelona B season

2016–17 FC Barcelona B season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Please note that this was previously deleted but that discussion took place before the season started so was deleted on

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon Guylherme

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Recreated after PROD BlameRuiner (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - beat me to it! Clearly fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. The nominator has done well to make this article out of the limited sources available but, sadly, it's not enough to pass GNG in my humble opinion. Spiderone 18:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 57 15:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete totally fails GNG. It is time for Wikipedia to stop being footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 5 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. BD2412 T 02:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lodro Rinzler

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

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

I have no opinion on nomination. This was requested by Rinzler via email (

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable as a writer nor as a religious leader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails GNG and most sources appear to be the subject's own profiles as a writer.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Am Internet search shows he graduated from college in 2005, but that's it. I'm in favor of going along with deleting
  marginally notable living persons who request the deletion of their articles. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevitham (1984 film)

Jeevitham (1984 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:52, 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varum Varunnu Vannu

Varum Varunnu Vannu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - can't find any evidence of notability; even the Sify review is just a rating with no prose Spiderone 17:27, 6 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. Geschichte (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

De Ingottu Nokkiye

De Ingottu Nokkiye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as the rediff review is significant coverage in a reliable source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Atlantic306 Donaldd23 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I could find a Sify review as well - https://www.sify.com/movies/de-ingottu-nokiye-review-malayalam-pclw98hjbcjae.html. It is hard to find reviews and the like for Malayalam movies older than 10 years, and its better to go by the quality of the lead actors to examine whether notability is met. Jupitus Smart 13:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Could this be added to the article? Geschichte (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per two RS reviews, meets NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:59, 3 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharya Swantham Suhruthu

Bharya Swantham Suhruthu (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - does have reviews in sify.com, India Glitz etc. but no nationally-known critics Spiderone 15:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nationally known means in well known national publications but while Sify is a reliable source, India Glitz is not, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:05, 4 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. There is consensus that the sourcing available fails to establish notability for this topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Dolic

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

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

Subject does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

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

]

• Delete not enough reliable source coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found 1 reference to Dolic via a ProQuest database search of Australasian newspaper articles, which while small and short would satisfy 'substantial' and 'independent', and so I've added it to the article. However, that alone is not sufficient to fulfill GNG. Insufficient notable coverage so fails GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrils (talk • contribs) 02:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found more reliable source coverage to justify the article, and I've added it to the article.Sthdifferent (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Local puff pieces are not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The point is that even the “local puff pieces” are independent sources which was the original argument. Actually I first heard of Dolic when he completed his studies in China back in 1987 and was celebrated in former Yugoslavia’s mainstream media as the first Yugoslavian and the first European to gain a degree in Chinese medicine from Beijing. I clearly remember all major TV stations (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian…) and leading papers of the time like Politika, Večernji list, Oslobođenje, Arena, Una, Top and many others ran stories and interviews on him. That is how I heard of him and the reason why I decided to write an article about him in Wikipedia. If he was not notable I would never do it in the first place. What happened since then is that the war broke up in the former Yugoslavia and Dolic left the country. I tried to source the article and contacted many of those publications but was unsuccessful since that was pre-digital era (and pre-war) and archiving was far from efficient. I would be more than happy if someone could instruct me on how to get the access to those sources. That is why relied on what I could find on him in Australia where Dolic has been residing since.Sthdifferent (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep At the time the AfD was created I would agree that it would not meet GNG and
  WP:RS they are to The Daily Telegraph / Mosman Daily. If more are added I would change my vote to keep. A quick google news search I wasn't able to find much more. CosmicNotes (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Added some more references. Sthdifferent (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: More references have been added by user @Sthdifferent: the PHD thesis cites Dolic 29 times (most are interviews). He clearly has notability in his own field of practice. Television interviews, radio interviews are usually not kept for posterity, at least, back in the days before social media. Keep, Dolic has proven stability and steadiness in his own field. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - first, none of the additional sources are the type of in-depth coverage needed to pass
  WP:GNG, and I'm sorry but being mentioned in a doctoral thesis of a non-notable person just is not that impressive, and counts zero towards notability. In addition, almost the entire article is unsourced; sections 1, 2, and 3, as well as most of section 4 have zero sourcing. Searches turned up zero in the way of in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I think most delete-proponents are missing a crucial point here, and that is they are overly stressing, to them, the lack of coverage of Dolic’s achievements (please see the above-mentioned major reasons for it). They are completely ignoring the facts that he is still, undisputedly, the first westerner ever to complete the full-time course with a degree from China’s top university of Chinese medicine, was the editor and publisher of Australia’s, to-date, the only Chinese medicine/Qigong magazine, the author of a book on Qigong translated into several languages, former lecturer and member of the executive committee of several associations, colleges and universities of Chinese medicine and so on. It amazes me that, to so many Wikipedians, it is all about the amount of references and those who have plenty are assured the articles, even if they were just clowns and all they ever did was had ten million hits on YouTube or shocked the world with their stupidities! As for the claims that sections 1, 2 and 3 lack sourcing, that is because there are 6 sources right at the beginning so there was no need to cite them again in these sections. Sthdifferent (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coverage is of insufficient depth and/or reliability to meet
  WP:GNG. The first x to do y is not automatically notable, only when it's covered in depth by reliable sources. Sandstein 19:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, per Sandstein. The depth of coverage available here is insufficient to show notability under
  WP:BIO. Things like "the first westerner ever to complete the full-time course with a degree from China’s top university of Chinese medicine" do not confer notability. Nsk92 (talk) 23:45, 11 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zydus Wellness

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

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

Pure

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A large
  talk) 04:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  NOTE: This vote is added by the creator of the article. - Hatchens (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: May be a listed company but the current content is extremely limited in scope and does not warrant an entire article at this point of time. The content can be moved to a section in the parent company's article. Prolix 💬 13:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have expanded the article a bit with more references. Just to add to my earlier vote, this is a ~US$2 billion market cap company which owns household brands like
  talk) 04:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I appreciate the cleanup and additional references. I also don't read the promotional tone referenced above.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: meets the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

• Delete. Promotion of a trading company, there is no independent commentary on the company, but a lot of non-independent glowing comments. Fails
  WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
  reliable sources to allow Zydus Wellness to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Merge into
  WP:LISTED, I'm concerned there's nothing at all to say about it beyond coverage of financial transactions and glowing reviews or at least lists of its products. It is clearly notable enough to be mentioned somewhere but it really doesn't seem to warrant an article separate from its parent company. This is true even though stock in the company might be traded independently of its parent. Wikipedia is not a stock market analyst desk. FalconK (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The article passes both
  WP:GNG. Yes, it needs editing to remove the promotional tone, but the article that can be fixed through editing, is not a candidate for AfD. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Enough coverage to satisfy
  WP:GNG. It is also edited to remove promotional tone. Beagel (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per Cunard who is correct that analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability. I also agree that this article needs some cleanup.
  HighKing⁺⁺ 22:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep looks like enough coverage to me. Doesn't seem like a merge per FalconK would be appropriate because evidentally they're not fully owned by their parent company and it has an independent history. ~EdGl talk 22:28, 5 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ʻAlí-Muhammad Varqá

ʻAlí-Muhammad Varqá (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all the Hands of the Cause should easily pass notability, and adding them as a section on Hands of the Cause is awkward. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable enough that Encyclopedia Iranica has an article about him, English Wikipedia should too: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/varqa-ali-mohammad. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Check the last comment of this section by Cuñado, one of the main Baha'i editor on wikipedia.Serv181920 (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that comment is relevant. Iranica is not a Wikipedia mirror. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is totally irrelevant; Iranica is a one of the most credible sources about on any topic related to Iran. Additionally Ali-Muhammad Varqa is not only mentioned there several times but it has a standalone article of its own. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is any wiki policy that states if Encyclopedia Iranica has an article then wikipedia should also have!Serv181920 (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article wants improvement, but being the last surviving Hand of the Cause, in addition to his other responsibilities, satisfies notability in my view. Granted, the overwhelming number of sources on him tend to be from Baha'i sources. That shouldn't be a great issue. RexSueciae (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He could be a notable person, but for Baha'is only. There can be a good article on him at Bahaipedia. I believe he fails

WP:BASICServ181920 (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep per Cunado. Again, Hands of the Cause should easily pass notability.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this can close as keep. Also another AFD just ran for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd al-Hosayn Ayati whose notability was also upheld with an Iranica article by most commentors. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is that case related to this case? And there the "notability" is not upheld due to Iranica alone! Serv181920 (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is it here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  WP:RELPEOPLE only refers to Christian leadership; it is exclusive of other faiths. So this reason for deletion is null and void. Wikiproject Baha'i Article Sources says that due weight should be given to using Encyclopædia Iranica as a source. It is regarded as a tertiary source. Blase references have been given to Hands of the Cause without sufficiently explaining it. This particular reference should suffice as notability for this article. Use of a notability guideline that does not explicitly address this world faith is misleading. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:53, 7 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. There is a consensus to delete here. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Borthwick (schoolmaster)

Stephen Borthwick (schoolmaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Run of the mill schoolmaster. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge probably with Epsom College, if not delete. A small health warning, the a membership of the

• Keep The subject complies with
  Epsom College Malaysia needs an article, but that supposes it is notable, and I believe there is no longer a presumption that all secondary schools are. But where does any of that go? Membership of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference does not "go with the job in most private schools", but that also has nothing to do with notability. Oaktree b, "WP:Run-of-the-mill" is an essay, not policy, and the GNG has nothing to do with importance, it is simply about whether there is enough coverage in reliable sources. Moonraker (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Epsom College Malaysia will have the WP:N but finding the secondary sources will be a challenge. I would start by who gives them accreditation and take it from there. Greetings and good wishes from Kent. ClemRutter (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment
  Fram, surely the point about employers, close associates, and so on, is that they nearly always give a sanitized version of events. But if they are respectable, they do not need to be ruled out completely, they can still be relied on for factual points of detail, but not for opinion or for giving a balanced overview. That’s how I see it, and it’s a common approach. Moonraker (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That's not what I meant though. For AfD, we are talking
    Fram (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Fram, I don’t dispute that, but the vast majority of the present sources are independent of the subject, and the ones you might question are only relied on for simple facts. As it happens, I should say the broadsheets are getting slow about producing obituaries, unless someone is a household name, when they probably have a draft ready. Moonraker (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Which substantial sources are independent? Most sources are passing mentions, inclusions in lists of people, interviews about different subjects (not interviews about themselves)... Can you list the 3 or so sources which you believe indicate notability for him (i.e. independent, reliable sources with substantial, non-routine coverage of him?).

Fram (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Fram

let’s use the GNG definition of “Significant coverage", viz. it “addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.”

You and I disagree on the Diocese of Hereford page, but to me it is clearly independent of the subject. I am not sure whether the Epsom College page is, but they are both relied on only to verify facts. Articles from The Times, The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, the Sutton and Croydon Guardian, and This Is Local London have more than trivial mentions, and there is an interview in Surrey Life. The Good Schools Guide and British and International Music Yearbook “address the topic directly”, and People of Today has a short biography. No doubt you would challenge all of those, but there we are. I don’t think there is any point in going further with this, other people will have their own ideas on notability, and I am busy in real life. Moonraker (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access all of them, but a birthday entry in the Times is not really significant coverage, the article in the Independent[24] is not coverage of Borthwick, just like this article in The Times[25] is not coverage of him: interviews are considered primary sources, not secndary sources, and the interviews are not about him but his comments about a topic.

Fram (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Fram, see the GNG: “...it does not need to be the main topic of the source material”. You are right about the birthday column of The Times, but it’s only leading educators who get included there. Moonraker (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Although sources are reliable notability is not attained under
  WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC).[reply
  ]

WP:GNG for people who get there by another route. The GNG is all that’s relevant here. Do you have a view on whether the sources fail to comply with that, in particular the short biographies in People of Today and hereford.anglican.org, the Good Schools Guide, British and International Music Yearbook, an interview in Surrey Life, articles in The Times, The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, the Sutton and Croydon Guardian, and This Is Local London? Moonraker (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The sources are reliable but not independent enough or significant enough to pass

WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC).[reply

]

There is nothing in-depth. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete - an accomplished education administrator, but does not pass
  WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Onel5969, could you please say how you arrive at that view? Please see the sources listed just above. Moonraker (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is so woolly anytime it is used it needs a reason. What are you trying to say? GNG says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. ClemRutter (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• ClemRutter, then by saying, doesn't meet GNG, what I am saying is that the topic has NOT received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Seems pretty clear to me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG defines all its terms, including “significant coverage”. Moonraker (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Moonraker, that's fair, there's not a single in-depth reference from an independent source in the article. Searches did not turn up anything either. The articles are brief mentions (or interviews, which as primary sources, do not go to notability). Or, like his death announcement from the school, which is in-depth, is not independent. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

onel5969, the GNG does not require significant coverage to be “in depth”. More than a “trivial mention”, yes, and I do not see anything which is only that. Trivial must mean trivial. Note: WP:Basic criteria says “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. And I still see reliable sources with substantial coverage, if it mattered. I think you have an argument about the school page, that’s one source we can ignore for notability. I did put a page from another school obituary in as an external link, and it might belong there, but even primary sources can be used to verify simple facts. Moonraker (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep for now. Headmasters do not generally get elected fellows of the Royal Society of Arts, nor do they have their birthdays listed by The Times, nor do they get their views solicited by major national newspapers (The Independent, The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph, ie all the major broadsheet stables apart from The Guardian/Observer). This is anything but run of the mill in the UK. Could revisit in 6–12 months, by which time there might well be obituaries to judge from newspapers and specialist education press -- all the major papers here are overwhelmed with the recent volume of deaths and are not noting people's passing in the usual way. The funeral is scheduled for mid January and might generate at least local press coverage[26], although considering the coronavirus restrictions may mean no-one can attend, perhaps not. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:23, 4 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.

Volkmar Weiss

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

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

This figure does not appear to be notable per

• Withdrawn by nominator. I won't stand in the way of what appears to be an emerging consensus for keeping this article. That doesn't mean I'm persuaded by all of the arguments below (I still think the subject clearly fails
  WP:PROF, and I've found only one instance of targeted commentary in a scientific journal –– the Gisela Grupe article in Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie). However it seems that others are prepared to see the coverage in German-language newspapers as evidence for general notability and I'll be happy to defer to that. Thanks to everyone who's participated in this discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:PROF is only satisfied when the subject has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area, which Mankind Quarterly is clearly not. Generalrelative (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:GNG. I suppose it's a judgment call, unless you're aware of any precedents or policy guidelines that would help us adjudicate? And once again: thanks. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Also: looking more into

9/11 "truther" claims by conspiracy theorist Mathias Bröckers and fringe ideas about physics by Burkhard Heim. Generalrelative (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:PROF. Generalrelative (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as OP. Generalrelative (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The BLP gives no significant evidence of notability. The closest is the statement that VW's arguments were used in a chapter of a book (Germany Abolishes Itself) that was very popular among German rightists. He seems to be mainly a minor promoter of fringe views, and the article lists the white supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly as his "Co-publisher" (perhaps a mistranslation from German). NightHeron (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable case of right-wing fringe science promoter and previous head of the
  WP:GNG sources in the German Wikipedia article. —Kusma (t·c) 11:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This article was apparently brought over from the German Wikipedia but without RS establishing notability. Could you be more specific on which sources in German establish notability? Note that the article German Social Union doesn't mention him. NightHeron (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. Article about his book in

die tageszeitung. Weiss doesn't like Wikipedia very much: [29]. He has not only published questionable ideas about the genetics of intelligence, but also crank pseudoscience [30] in Mohamed El Naschie's journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. I can't find particularly good sources about the German Social Union (DSU) connection at the moment (can verify that Weiss was involved, but many articles/books that study the early DSU history typically use texts written by Volkmar Weiss as their main source). There's a lot to find from him via Google Scholar or Google Books, and his theses were discussed in a wide spectrum of German newspapers (not too hard to find), applauded by the hard right, condemned by the left. Notable enough, but I don't want to write about him. —Kusma (t·c) 22:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - badly fails
  WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: fails NPROF The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

• Keep. Notable pseudoscientist. I went to the article on the German WP and already reference 2 is an
  independent reliable source. I didn't bother looking further, but there are 27 references in that article and while several are to publications by Weiss himself, several others appear to be independent RSs. Our article could be improved by using some of the stuff that our German colleagues have used. --Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: don't be silly. Die Welt/Welt am Sonntag and Die Tageszeitung absolutely are RS. --Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Since this article was started over a decade ago, there've been about 100 edits, and it still does not establish notability. The two editors who want to keep it have argued that, if additional material were brought over from the German article, that could establish notability. A hypothetical statement like that is hard to evaluate, especially by those of us who don't know German. If someone who wants this article kept could put in the edits they're referring to, then we could evaluate whether or not they establish notability. Of course, Wikipedia policy explicitly allows editing of the article during the deletion discussion.

Also, for a productive discussion it would be helpful to avoid casting aspersions on other editors ("don't be silly"). NightHeron (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be silly. Nobody is casting aspersions on other editors, but doubting that Die Welt/Welt am Sonntag is somehow not a gold-plated RS is plain silly. --Randykitty (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I thank NightHeron for their comment. For the record, I'm okay with being called silly, though of course it doesn't add anything to the discussion. The issue is with the sources. The only specific guidance I've been able to find on Die Welt and Die Tageszeitung is the New page patrol source guide, which lists both of them as having been subjected to "insufficient discussion". Those designations link to this RfC, where Stephan Schulz states that Die Welt is at the lower end of the German quality press, but yes, for factual reporting it's generally reliable. To back this up they cite this peer-reviewed article [31] and summarize it as follows: it lists Die Welt as the lowest of the second rank papers, below Frankfurter Rundschau and above Die Tageszeitung. TAZ is alone on the third rank, and the 4th rank papers include Bild and Neues Deutschland, which I don't think anyone would include as "quality press". Not exactly "gold-plated RS" (and Die Tageszeitung / TAZ is further cast into doubt), but if these sources are considered reliable enough for the community here then I suppose that's that. Generalrelative (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)'[reply]

• Since may name came up: I'm not a fan of Die Welt, and Die Tageszeitung has a very strong and clear political positioning. But they both are part of the quality press. Not NYT quality, but easily on par with e.g. The Times under Murdoch, and unquestionably better than e.g. the New York Post. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your insight. Generalrelative (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per significant coverage in RSes as shown by Kusma, although I'm doubtful that his work at Deutsche Zentralstelle für Genealogie is a strong argument for notability in the absence of related sigcov in RSes. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Enough academic and publishing qualifications for WP:PROF; the German Wikipedia article is strong; being a right-wing extremist scientist makes him notable in the notorious sense, but this is sufficient, he is noticed and commented upon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A disagreeable puffball and quack, but a notable one. In addition to the NP coverage discussed above, there's also material in Der Freitag and targeted commentary in scientific journals. All that stuff would have to be lifted over from the German version, but since this is the rare deWP article that actually has plenty of inline cites (woah...), it's perfectly doable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as nomination was withdrawn. ~EdGl talk 20:21, 5 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 speedy delete. Missvain (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tendulkar-Fleming Trophy

Tendulkar-Fleming Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article seems to be a

• Speedy delete as a hoax. Speedy delete tag was deleted by article creator, who has refused to engage with us, and there are no sources that this trophy exists/is going to exist in the future. The "trophy image" is just a random photo of a blank trophy, and so it seems they're deliberately trying to created a plausible looking hoax article. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. No evidence of existence. Only conclusion can be that this is a hoax. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - the page creator has no right to remove the speedy deletion tag. This is a blatant hoax and I don't think we should wait 7 days for deletion. Spiderone 18:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete The author has blanked the page. It is indeed a hoax article. I have restored the CSD template that author had removed without reason. --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Rexing

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

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

I find it lacks notability. Is the BLP of a baker entrepreneur that has a coffee shop Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I did note on the talk page, pretty much immediately after writing this article, that it might be better to rewrite parts of it and rename it T-Rex Cookie. It was my impression from the sources I found that either Rexing or T-Rex would be notable, and I decided to write the article primarily from a biographical standpoint initially, but would be perfectly happy if the decision was the article doesn't meet the requirements for BLP. Anyway, I have no strong feelings either way on this AfD, but wanted to raise that alternative again. --MarkTraceur (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkTraceur: yeah, I think it is better to move it to T-Rex Cookie. The way the article is now, seems a little bit promotional to me. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and keep per the discussion above. Interesting info worth keeping.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An article on the company could be written from the sources in this article, but this article is truly just a resume. The company is notable, but founders don't inherit notability from their companies. FalconK (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment on second read, I'm not actually so sure the company is notable. Coverage of it appears to be exclusively local. I'm still in camp delete. FalconK (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FalconK's reasoning.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Transitory, and the coverage is almost exclusively local.
  Kablammo (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and should be renamed per MarkTraceur above. Just a quick glance at the article and a Google search I see enough local coverage as well as NPR, an appearance on Today, and at least one mention on Today's website. ~EdGl talk 20:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linked sources are respectively an interview and a recipe (which happens to mention her in passing). FalconK (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The person is not notable.
  WP:TNT should be followed and a new article made for the cookie itself, parts and sources could be copied over. ~RAM (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]