Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan Ahmed Khan

Zeeshan Ahmed Khan (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 People-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - the Catch News piece is way too brief to be acceptable on its own, anyway. As things stand, the sources do not establish notability and this clearly fails
  WP:BASIC. Spiderone 10:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was merge to List of characters in The Railway Series. I'm suggesting y'all discuss or try to merge whatever information you think is merge-worthy. Doesn't have to be the article I suggested here. Then you can just redirect when you're done. Thanks everyone....this train has left the station. Missvain (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry the Green Engine

Henry the Green Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

An article about a single fictional locomotive within the world of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposal that was made to merge this information into List of characters in The Railway Series was rejected by only one user. This article contains two sets of information. Half the article could and should be moved to the Henry section of List of characters in The Railway Series. The other half should go to List of Thomas & Friends characters. Unfortunately that article is simply a bare list of names.

I oppose deletion on two grounds

1. Notability. Whilst only appealing to a small audience there is serious interest as shown by the following web site https://ttte.fandom.com/wiki/Henry_the_Green_Engine
2. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is a place for minority interest articles.

One of the objections to the article was the lack of citations. This has been partially addressed. OrewaTel (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of notability like the rest of the characters from the series, through this one at least attempts to discuss some controversies related to two episodes the character appears in. However, the controversies are related to the episodes and not really to this character, so if sources are found (one of the sections has no sources), the odds are they won't be of much help, but do ping me if you think otherwise. The best I can see here for salvaging is that if said sources are found, maybe the mentioned episodes could get stand-alone articles? Regarding the proposed merge, there is little to merge as most of the article is still unreferenced plot summary aka
  WP:FANCRUFT, through I have no major objections to a merger if anyone wants to carry it out (just don't dump irrelevant info in a list). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This article dates back to 2004, 2 years before Wikipedia started to develop notability guidelines for fictional things and back when Wikipedia was drowning in fancruft. We have since realized that Wikipedia needs to require things to be notable, which Henry is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above analysis. Unless more sources are presented, this fails
  WP:GNG. I'd recommend that if the Fandom is insufficient to ask an admin to temporarily restore any deleted page history so it can be transwiki'd. TTN (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per everyone above. Surprised though that there are no reliable sources available since Henry is a main character. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can’t believe the Thomas deletionists are still at it. Henry is notorious for being bricked up in the tunnel and that is alone he is part of popular culture not to mention the several other plot lines that he was notable for. Special Coal and Henry’s Forest (in which a tv documentary featured a complaint from Rev Awdry himself) are easily notable. 94.175.6.205 (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if possible. There is some information here to preserve. Some of it is about the story that Henry appears in and not on topic. But the Washington Post article does cover some interesting facts about Henry. I agree this isn't enough to establish
  WP:PRESERVING. Archrogue (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per
  Notoability is not inherited, but preservation of sources and information are always welcome. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 1 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. MER-C 18:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poulomi Saha

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

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. Spyder212 (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could use better sources for the article, twitter and two newspapers isn't pushing it over the top. Not much from what I can see to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk)
• Delete: per nom. Every face that appears on television does not automatically warrant a wiki page. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This TV anchor does not have any remarkable achievement so far that merits a Wikipedia article. No detailed coverage of the person found. Walrus Ji (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional United States marshals

List of fictional United States marshals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional vice presidents of the United States, if fictional vice presidents is not a valid list topic then US marshals are surely not. There is not even any assertion of the US marshals being notable characters within the work they appeared in. I can't for the life of me see the value of this list. Geschichte (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very few of these characters have notability in the movies they play. Atleast not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. This seems like one of those articles about un-notable topics that nobody gets around to removing.
  talk) 22:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Something like "law officers in fiction" might be notable but a list of fictional US marshals is certainly a trivial list. Rhino131 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The
  Marshal Matt Dillon and Dennis Weaver from Gunsmoke, Rooster Cogburn from True Grit, Will Kane in High Noon, Marshal Sam Gerard in The Fugitive films and TV series, Clint Eastwood's character in Hang 'Em High, Dennis Weaver's character in McCloud, Artemus Gordon from The Wild Wild West, and John Wayne in Cahill U.S. Marshal are among the most significant and memorable characters ever developed in the U.S. Marshals genre. Good overviews of U.S. marshals in fiction can be found here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Most of the names from this list are not notable. Fails
  WP:LISTN. - Mukt (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The second source named by Cbl62 would be useful to write about
  indiscriminate list. Not sure if the first is an RS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete While being unsourced is not always a problem, the fact that we see no sourcing that considers these as a group is telling. I also question whether all fiction has thought through the issues involved enough for it to always be clear if a character is a US marshal, or a sherrif or sherriff's deputy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  unverifiable, as opposed to real-life U.S Marshalls which can be verified. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Only like five of the listed characters here have articles.
  talk) 19:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdi Zurqani

Hamdi Zurqani (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 very obvious

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete,
  WP:PROF#C1 and no other case for notability is apparent. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per all of the above comments. Certainly
  WP:PROF. The article's creator blanked the page after it had been listed for AfD[1] (I reverted the blanking), possibly indicating their agreement that the article should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete different fields require different amounts of time to become notable, for academics it requires a lot of work and time. For example Jay Buckley I had as a professor at BYU back in the fall of 2014 shortly before his book William Clark: Indian Diplomat came out. I have considered creating an article on professor Buckley, even looked into it, but I was never quite convinced he passed notability. The same is true of Brian Q. Cannon another professor I had the same semester. It takes a lot of research work and publications for an academic to meet notability guidelines, or in a few cases one publication that has a truly field altering impact, I see neither for Zurqani.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it may be
  WP:TOOSOON Spudlace (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Carpenter (Internet engineer)

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

)

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

This individual does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Their Wikipedia page is largely self-written and does not cite appropriate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdeline (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Passes
  WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC).[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As well as the evident pass of
  WP:PROF#C1, his leadership of various internet organizations gives him a case for #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Article easily passes
  WP:PROF. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This passes
  WP:PROF Spudlace (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep passes
  WP:Prof#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:45, 30 November 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) 23:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natan Pereira

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

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

Article about footballer who has only played semi-professionally except for a 36-minute cameo in the

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and clear recent AFD consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. GiantSnowman 22:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - clearly fails GNG Spiderone 09:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abayob: Face the Devil Inside

Abayob: Face the Devil Inside (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 20:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reviews in reliable sources (I do not count a tweet that then links to someone's blog as a review here) Spiderone 10:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - short films are
  lack significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 1 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. MER-C 18:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Iscaro

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

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

Contested PROD (no reason given for dePRODing), does not qualify for

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet NRU or GNG; coverage is almost entirely from primary sources and nothing better found in a search Spiderone 21:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete none of the coverage is independent or reliable. Fails
  WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to Jordan Peterson#Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life (2021). For now. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life

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

)

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

This stub is a plug for a forthcoming book,

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article now has six sources, 3 of them are about the book directly. I belive it now meets

WP:NBOOK. J.Turner99 (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The reference is to a publication listed as "generally unreliable" at

talk) 21:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I mention the YouTube video to suggest that there is plenty to write about. As far as I know, I think it is OK to keep a generally unreliable source in the article until you can find a new one. I have changed the spurce now anyway. But I would suggest instead of just removing the source, I would ask you to please consider looking for a replacement, in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Turner99 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now extended the article to point where I feel it warrants its existance. A book does not have to be released for an article to made about it. Barrck Obama's New Book had a wiki article about it months before it was released. We already know the introduction and what the book is about. I have already put information regarding the background and there is enough information to add Summary/Content and perhaps Publication, because Peterson has outlined what formats the book will be available in and where it will be sold. J.Turner99 (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, I think it is OK to keep a generally unreliable source in the article until you can find a new one. It can be acceptable to keep a mediocre source — that's why we have the {{

talk) 18:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete fails
  talk) 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Jordan Peterson#Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life (2021) for the time being. Currently, this article has only two sentences of prose and no references. Once reviews, sales figures, etc. start appearing, it's likely that it will be possible to make a proper article about this book, but at this point there's not enough to say to warrant a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now - Sources are inevitable, but until then an article is premature. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect As per XOR'easter. Autarch (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per above. It's rare that media will be notable prior to its official release, especially books. Even books by extremely mainstream authors such as Stephen King have trouble passing NBOOK prior to their release, as most of the coverage is just an announcement that the book will release on X day. It looks like what's out there are just announcements that the book will release, which isn't enough for a standalone article at this point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - fails
  WP:BKCRIT, but until then wait to make a standalone article. Redirect to the section on Peterson's article and build content there for now. Οἶδα (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect - as above, too soon. Wait until it's published.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:20, 27 November 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. MER-C 18:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Musaddam Idriss Musa

Musaddam Idriss Musa (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 Notablity.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. With one weak-looking exception the sources provided are all dead links or links to his own work. No evidence of multiple RIS. Mccapra (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I looked into this more closely because the nomination and arguments so far are a variation of
  WP:GNG, but would like to be proven wrong by someone who has better access to Nigerian sources than myself. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. I think from the sources in the article and those presented here that there is just about enough for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cian Maciejewski

Cian Maciejewski (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 removed. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - just about passes GNG albeit not for her football career [2] [3] [4] [5] Spiderone 16:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per
  WP:SPORTBASIC. N:FOOTY and its essay is inadequate for players in top women's football (soccer) leagues around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Unfortunately there's not quite enough out there to write an article on her sports career, and I don't think her TV competition career is notable (Ninja warrior contestants are typically not notable.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - seems to pass GNG for the reasons given by Spiderone. The football career in my view just brings her over the line for notability. Deus et lex (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 20:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect No solid reason has been given to justify the deletion of this content while valid
  alternatives exist. If she is not worthy of a standalone article this can be redirected somewhere. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I found sources relating to her football career in Gale (originally written in
  WP:GNG. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - as per the soures found by Z1720 I have upgraded my !vote above to Keep. Deus et lex (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Spiderone and Z1720.Passes
  WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yonnyboii

Yonnyboii (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 Notablity, seems promotional or advertising.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article's shamelessly promotional tone had me expecting the worst, but he gets a little closer to
  too soon for a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Because this article is entirely a promotional and advertising rather than encyclopedia. I suspect this was created by a user who have close connection with the subject. Hope this can locked to prevent it from recreated.–Fandi89 (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe notably one day but for now
  WP:TOOSOON Spudlace (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Helnwein

Mercedes Helnwein (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

Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the problem here is that the article uses poor sources to fluff up her notability. However there are decent sources available (e.g. Google news search: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), and the article can be trimmed and updated with the new sources.
  talk
  )
• Keep I'm in agreement with ThatMontrealIP that more RS exist that are substantial coverage. Also, I don't believe that
  Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED applies here. Her father is often mentioned in passing but isn't the subject of the article. Theredproject (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Sources provided by ThatMontrealIP clearly show that RS exist in sufficient supply to meet GNG (per
  WP:INHERIT, I think its safe to say there are enough sources that mention the father briefly only insofar as it would be bad journalism to not say 'this artist has a father who is also an artist and is relatively famous'. Samsmachado (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per sources found by
  ThatMontrealIP that show significant coverage in reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per sources found by ThatMontrealIP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:20, 30 November 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. MER-C 18:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan Khan (actor)

Zeeshan Khan (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable actor having only portrayed small roles. Most of the sources cited do not even mention the subject. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'd say move to draft, but I already moved it to
  WP:GNG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Cyphoidbomb: it looks like they're on a warpath to force this article into live space despite what other experienced editors suggest. So, this is starting to feel like agenda-driven editing

Not at all Sir, but rather you seem to be on an agenda-driven editing to delete this article by wrongly claiming that wikipedia is a neutral platform!

However, I respect your suggestions as you are an experienced editor and I will give my opinions here, though I first thought that the discussion is happening in the talk page.

I have no issues if the final decision is that the article should be deleted as being a new editor, I do not want to go against the rules and norms put by the administrators here.

I will put my reasons for not deleting this page but I leave the choice to the administrators.

Thank you--Aleyamma38 (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete this Wikipedia article

I agree that this actor has not done many shows and even in the shows which he got to do, he only had Recurring/Supporting roles.

But, is it the no of shows or the type of roles of an Actor which determine the creation of their articles in Wikipedia?

Then how will be the motto of Wikipedia the free encyclopedia which has a NEUTRALITY IN IT'S ARTICLES be fulfilled?

Here, I'm not talking as a FAN but just a COMMON WIKIPEDIAN EDITOR, who had carefully studied each and every wikipedia guidelines for creating a biography of an individual before creating both Zeeshan Khan and Aparna Mishra; And I know not every 'struggling-actor can have a wikipedia article but, if I am not wrong...

• An Actor must have atleast done 3 shows.

• He/She should have been working for atleast 5 years or more.

• There should be proper referencing of him/her as An Actor.

• The references should be reliable resources such Pinkvilla, Times of India, Tribune, Indian Express, Bollywoodlife etc; Tellychakkar, IVMBuzz, Bookmyshow, Filmibeat and certain other websites are considered unreliable resources.

And I guess the article Zeeshan Khan follows all of the guidelines mentioned above!

I would also like to mention that the articles

Image file

to be an own work, plus the Filmography section is very badly edited.

Yes, Zeeshan Khan has never been in lead roles like Abrar Qazi and Mugdha Chaphekar, but is it neutral to have wikipedia articles of Zeeshan Khan (actor born in 1989), Abrar Qazi, Mugdha Chaphekar and many other articles which I have come across in Wikipedia with very bad editing and referencing, while delete an article of Zeeshan Khan all because he has done only supporting and recurring roles.

Ethically, in a normal world we try to Respect, every Profession for whatever each individual does, because there is a mutual relation of every profession with each other.

In the same way, in the field of Acting, every actor should be RESPECTED, no matter whatever role he/she does because a show or film doesn't run only with the lead actors.

So, when wikipedia has this motto of being a NEUTRAL PLATFORM, it would be UNFAIR to delete this article all because the actor has never got lead roles.

@

WP:GNG

And being only given a supporting, recurring role in every show adds to the fact, why there are very few articles mentioning the actor.

However, I request that, atleast Wikipedia can follow the Rule of Neutrality and not JUDGE LIKE OTHER MEDIA!

--Aleyamma38 (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree delete the page as he is not a notable celebrity compared to Hina Khan Arjun Bijlani Sanaya Irani and Pearl V Puri. And Aleyamma38 Pinkvilla is not a reliable source stop lying and Abrar and Mughda are more popular than Khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:A2:7E3B:C81B:CFAC:10A2:2318 (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2A01:4C8:A2:7E3B:C81B:CFAC:10A2:2318 and 2A01:4C8:A2:7E3B:C81B:CFAC:10A2:2318: Pinkvilla is not a reliable source stop lying and Abrar and Mughda are more popular than Khan

I agree with your second statement that the actor is not a celebrity and I already mentioned it in my reasons earlier. But your second statement Pinkvilla is not a reliable source, makes you a liar. If you have doubts, please ask the administrators here, as the articles of Pinkvilla are one among the most used in almost all Hindi Television Series as a reliable resource.

By the way, you need not put up requests on my talk page not to delete Mugdha Chaphekar, if you really want to know which are the REAL UNREALIABLE REFERENCES in Wikipedia then the editors of Mugdha Chaphekar article have used them in their references. Please do check it up once. Thank you

--Aleyamma38 (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Pinkvilla is not considered a reliable source by the Wikipedia community, as it is a gossip site. Neither is Bollywoodlife, neither is Tellychakkar, neither is Bookmyshow, neither is Filmibeat, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Thank you for that confirmation sir, because if you don't mind and also as I guess your watchlist comes under the articles related to article Kumkum Bhagya, you should check the article of Mugdha Chaphekar at least for once Sir, because that article has 3 references out of ten, one from PINKVILLA, INDIAFORUMS and IVMBUZZ, now aren't all these unreliable? Plus, the filmography section has almost no references and badly edited with no mention of the Year of the Show. Please do check once, even if it doesn't come in your watchlist Sir. Thank you--Aleyamma38 (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleyamma38: First, do you think you can tone down the obnoxious boldface? Second, I said very clearly on my talk page "if you find content that is problematic for one reason or another, you are free to fix those issues." I'm a volunteer just like anybody and you don't get to dictate my workload or where I focus my attention. Note also that this is a discussion about the suitability of the Zeeshan Khan (actor) article, not about other articles at Wikipedia. Any commentary about these other articles is off-topic and non-constructive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: First, do you think you can tone down the obnoxious boldface? Not at all Sir, but I guess your are thinking like that!

Second, I said very clearly on my talk page "if you find content that is problematic for one reason or another, you are free to fix those issues. No thanks Sir, If I volunteer to fix all the issues then it will take my whole life! I'm a volunteer just like anybody and you don't get to dictate my workload or where I focus my attention. Sorry Sir I did not know that the major work of the wikipedia administrators is to block the new users and delete their articles, rather than fixing the existing issues. Will never ask any Wikipedia admin to fix anything! again. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Doesn't fulfill
  Sunshine1191 (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete- After having several discussions, I take back my request, please delete this article Zeeshan Khan --Aleyamma38 (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails
  isn't notable right now. Ravensfire (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per all of the above - we all agree that this fails NACTOR and GNG Spiderone 10:32, 1 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.

Gloss Media

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

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

completely and utterly non-notbale site sourced entirely to blackhat SEO sites (paid for publications), press releases and business listings. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This comment and request for deletion is blatantly incorrect. Did you even review the references? If you did, you will have seen that there are references from Vogue, Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, dlisted, The Guardian, etc, etc. I have reviewed your other contributions and it appears that you like to throw around the "not notable site sourced by blackhat seo sites" comment quite regularly without actually reading the article and references. This is not helpful to the wikipedia community at all. What's more, I tried to have a conversation about this on your talk page and you ignored me. Alas, I feel that this article should not be deleted. The subject is notable and the references are properly sourced PiratePuppy (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Finance is a press release, bloomberg is a listing, Vogue is a single passing mention and the rest are literally paid for. Perhaps you should read

WP:PAID. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are not looking at all the articles. dlisted, flying geze, viral cola, etc, are definitely not paid for sites. Dlisted is one of the largest celebrity magazines in the celebrity market. Also, how can you not say the subject is notable? Given they just worked with the Rock, that seems pretty notable? Anyway, I tried to work this out with you on your talk page as previously noted and you failed to engage with me, so I guess we need an impartial third party to review this article and decide for themselves. I'm sorry we weren't able to come to an understanding between the both of us :( PiratePuppy (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking in circles. None of those are

WP:RS. This is an obviously promotional, non-notable and likely paid for piece that has fabricated sources with no basis in reality. Praxidicae (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your feedback and your opinions of my rebuttable, but again I disagree. I am not talking in circles. I tried to communicate with you on your talk page about this but you would not engage. I feel you have lost objectivity, but let's see what an independent, third party reviewer thinks when they have reviewed the article and all references in totality. PiratePuppy (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Want to explain where you got the Alexa numbers from, that you used as a source, despite the source itself not even being remotely related to Gloss Media? In fact, Alexa shows it ranking somewhere in the high millions, but you decided to fabricate it by linking to WorldStarHipHop. Care to explain? Praxidicae (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same article? The alexa numbers were in a previous draft which I removed quite a while ago (well before your above comment) as I noticed it was an error. There was no "fabrication". But in using this terminology, you are again using language which is clearly non objective. I am happy to defer to another independent, arms length reviewer to read the entire article and references. Thanks PiratePuppy (talk)

Too late for another reviewer, you ignored the declines and past reviews, so now it's at AFD. I will not be rescinding it. And the idea that you didn't include it is laughable - you included a source that is blatantly false (bigtimedaily) and an unsupported statement that they rank 235th in page views with 2.5 billion a month, a blatant lie. Or are you saying you did not type this into the draft? You can easily tell that this is untrue by looking at Alexa. Praxidicae (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure why you are always so mad. Editing wikipedia is supposed to be fun and informative. We are supposed to learn and support each other. You are the opposite of these things. You are not warm and inviting, and looking at your own talk page, it is clear that you are generally and consistently confrontational. It is sad that you feel that you need to act this way. Nobody was lying or fabricating anything, I simply put in an incorrect url. The balance of the article was correct with fully notable references. But you continue with whatever conspiracy theories make you happy. Have a nice day PiratePuppy (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this frippery per nom. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt. This article has already been created twice by sockpuppets under the title Gloss (media), and has been deleted both times. The sourcing in the article is entirely junk - Press releases, Social media, User submitted content and passing mentions. The high quality sources in the article (bbc, the guardian) do not mention Gloss media at all, not even a credit to confirm that they were the source of the video as claimed. This article would probably qualify for speedy deletion (A7, G11) 192.76.8.81 (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like it would also qualify for G5 [10]. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources are trivial mentions, press release churnalism, or apparent native advertising. -
  MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The best sources don't mention Gloss and are therefore worthless. Some are passing mentions. Some are promotional baloney about raising a couple million dollars, which is chump change. Some sources are the obvious result of press releases and promotionalism. Then there are references to Instagram - how absurd! There is not a single reference to a high quality independent source devoting significant coverage to Gloss as a business venture. Fails
  WP:NCORP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Marriott

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

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

The article does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Perhaps too soon, it might one day be recognized as a late 20th Century modern architectural marvel. Otherwise just a concrete hotel from the 70's. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - arguably, as once the tallest building in a state, it has a claim to notability. Nonetheless, it fails my standards for skyscrapers. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 1 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Myrtle Beach

List of tallest buildings in Myrtle Beach (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 Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  15:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  15:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is not a major city (less than 35k population) and only 5 of these buildings actually have known heights. Fails
  WP:RS. The only thing available is routine coverage in Emporis and Skyscraperpage. Thirdly, I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in 'Myrtle Beach' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources. Spiderone 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Far from being a major city. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Let's see if we can expand the article. If all else fails, feel free to AfD again. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le Centre Sheraton Hotel

Le Centre Sheraton Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A perfectly normal nice hotel; the article contains no claim of notability. Four sources in the article are a blog, a database listing, and two articles about events that occurred at the hotel.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It is a fairly tall building but architectural importance is probably not present, as it is only the 37th tallest in Montreal and the fourth tallest hotel there. I also did not manage to find significant coverage. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hotels are pretty
  reliably sourced evidence of its significance, such as a noteworthy historical or cultural impact. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete - it has a couple of claims to fame but not enough to be notable. I'm on the edge with this one. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep easily passes
  WP:GNG, just needs improvement. The English-language Gazette gave it a three-page spread when it opened, not including a full-page ad, which ran with a number of advertisements wishing the hotel good luck, which was common for large projects around those times: [11] [12] and some coverage from far away here: [13]. That's just English-language coverage. Not all hotels are notable, but I'm disappointed that this is being dismissed as a "routine hotel", especially since hotels are one area of the encyclopaedia where I've been editing recently. SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep The sources provided by SportingFlyer plus the sources in the article are more than adequate to pass
  WP:GNG. Oakshade (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gair Rhydd

Gair Rhydd (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 that fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as a student newspaper for a major university, which has been published for almost 50 years. It has won the Student newspaper of the year award in 2005 and received general news coverage (available online) in general news sources, in particular about the cartoon of Muhammad. The lengthy articles in BBC News and the Daily Telegraph are clearly about Gair Rhydd, contrary to what the nominator alleges. Sionk (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:BEFORE and Amkgp. See this and that. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Webclift Airways

Webclift Airways (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 1 destination airline that as of yet hasn't begun business. No coverage anywhere. Praxidicae (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 14:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom:
  WP:GNG and in the current climate pure speculation!!--Petebutt (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I believe you meant to refer to
  WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

• Delete: By
  WP:TOOSOON (by, essentially, two years) and shouldn't have been moved out of draftspace. Since it has, those apply, and it should be deleted without prejudice to recreation if and when the airline exists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Kindly review this page as a source of article. More articles will be published within due time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathrow0003 (talk • contribs) 11:28am, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Heathrow0003; your source doesn't work. It asks us to input data to get results. Nightfury 15:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify (with a lock on moving it back to articlespace) with a view to incubation. As much as I want to delete there is a few (albeit not particularly decent) sources that prove that it exists, I would recommend that the creator submits it through AfC once they are happy its ready for moving to articlespace. I have noted there is a few back-and-forward pagemoves to and from draftspace, so would recommend a move protect be added once article is in dratspace. Nightfury 15:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I PRODed this back in September, and nothing much seems to have changed since. WP is not a
  WP:CRYSTALBALL. Article has now been in and out of Draft multiple times. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Two years from now,
  move protection is warranted. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nsk92 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Osler

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

)

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

I declined the A7 speedy since there an obviously plausible claim to academic notability with multiple published math papers in peer reviewed journals. However, on closer inspection I don't see the subject as satisfying any of the relevant notability guidelines. Citability of his math papers is pretty low, both in GScholar and in MathSciNet, with h-index somewhere in single digits. He was a runner participating and winning some local marathons (according to the article, there are no references but I am taking the claims at face value for now), but even assuming all of that is true, that seems to fall quite short of passing

• • I am withdrawing the nomination in view of the discussion above. The subject's notability has been established, and the article's creator has been made aware of the relevant COI guidelines and indicated their willingness to respect them. Nsk92 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify, to be run through AfC. While I think the subject is probably notable per
  WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY etc. The creator should disclose any COI. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Could you explain why you think the subject might be notable under

WP:PROF seemed the weekest. Nsk92 (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, sorry! The article should probably be (eventually?) under Thomas J. Osler, as the notable papers are published under that name or as T. J. Osler. I added a link to the right GS profile under External Links. Anyway, there are several papers on that profile with 100s of citations, which I think is enough, especially in a low-citation field like math. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes, I see you are right, somehow when I was doing a GScholar search, I missed this GScholar Profile page and most of the citation hits it is showing. I agree that there might be a plausible case for

WP:PROF notability here, and that draftification is a good option, particularly in view of COI concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Switching to keep, per

WP:HEY by David Eppstein. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Osler is a three-time national champion runner (who also won many local races---not simply participating in local events as the user above mentioned). I have added a reference which cites his three national championship runs. I strongly suspect they are also referenced in issues of the Long Distance Log of 1965 and 1967, that being the only record of such things at the time, but those logs do not seem to be searchable and I am combing through them manually.

Also, I have a COI in that I know Osler personally and gathered material through recorded interviews with him; however, I then realized that probably does not meet citeability guidelines. Skymath1 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I see that you have also added a reference[15] that Osler has been inducted into

WP:AfC process. Nsk92 (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank YOU for all the helpful feedback. Although I think the style of the article can be improved, I think that it is sufficiently cited now with third-party citations to justify staying in article space. I shall review the bio stylesheet and work to improve the overall style but I don't see a reason to put it back to draftspace. However, I am very new to the process and gratefully welcome feedback and guidance. Thank you again! Skymath1 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your COI, YOU SHOULD NOT EDIT THE ARTICLE WHILE IT IS IN ARTICLE SPACE. Nsk92 and myself are proposing moving it to draft space so that you may work on it some more, and because we have concerns about whether it is currently mainspace-ready. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I will refrain from further edits. However, all the original objections with regards to meritability and third-party citations have been addressed, so it seems to me that the article is appropriate for mainspace, presumably leaving intact notices about improvements.Skymath1 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks, sorry to "shout". You'll want to read the

COI guidelines. The tl;dr is that for any edits that are not completely trivial, you should make a request on the talk page, and an editor without close connection will then evaluate and implement. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem at all. I read the COI guidelines after one of the above users (it may have been you?) mentioned COI. I understood it to mean to be very careful and only edit things that are well-documented. I can clearly see the lack of documentation that prompted the original flag for deletion, but I think it's correct now, and the edits I made after finding the COI policy have all been cited. To clarify, though, if I find more references, should I refrain from adding them directly, but rather put them in the Talk page with a request to be added? I'm referring to simply adding references here, not to modifying substantive content. Thank you again for your guidance.Skymath1 (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Please make future requests for edits through the talk page rather than implementing them directly. That includes the addition of references, also because the referencing in the article as you left it was not good. When suggesting references, please aim for publications about Osler by other people rather than anything written by Osler or published by his employer. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This solution is reasonable but it does have some drawbacks. I'm not sure if the article, if left in mainspace, will have any other active editors, apart from Skymath1. As a practical matter that means that Skymath1 might have to wait for quite a while for the edits they suggest/request at the article talk page to be implemented. Having said that, if Skymath1 is OK with this option, I'll withdraw the nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine. The article is in significantly better shape than it was 24 hours ago, and I greatly thank the several contributors. The referencing is excellent, and I am impressed that someone discovered the math conference held in Osler's honor (OslerFest, April 17, 2010) before I could get around to requesting it in the Talk page. There is an important reference regarding Osler's unification of the Vieta and Wallis products: there is a section in a textbook on Pi (the number), written only 2 or 3 years after Osler's discovery, which is entirely about the discovery. Having original work get into a textbook in such a short amount of time is quite impressive. I will add the request to have this added back once I remember which textbook it's in.

Thank you again for all the help and guidance to a newb. Skymath1 (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, citation record on Google Scholar is enough for
  WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 23 November 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. If someone wants to redirect, go for it. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping (fandom)

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

)

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

The topic here seems to fail

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why the article is requested for deletion (sources) and I do not oppose it that much anymore. What I'd like to say is, few news outlets, other companies, etc. even dare to touch the fandom. For example: SMART BANANA, a notorious example (mentioned in the article) published a mapping video with a couple of things that the mapping fandom views badly, and SMART BANANA had to take their video down. So the article has a disadvantage from the start. Also, some references are just to demarcate that a mentioned thing exists.

talk) 09:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

reliable, YouTube or fandom/wikia are not). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 09:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Article fails to meet
  reliable coverage of this subject. TheRealDario04 (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - per above, and as fan content. If any individual Youtuber is notable per our guidelines, they should get a page. Including a bunch of non-notable Youtubers (under 10k subscribers without any RS coverage) under the heading of a 'fandom' is not the way to get it done. And as noted, an incredible amount of OR ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:34, 16 November 2020 (UTCi
• Delete per reasons outlined above by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and Dario. toweli (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons stated above.Eccekevin (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:Soft redirect to Wikibooks:Mapping on YouTube Original research is allowed on Wikibooks. I suggest we create a cross-wiki redirect, and maybe move some of the content there, keeping this page's history intact so that it can be attributed to the original writers. Koopinator (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: That might be the best solution yet. I would support this, since it both keeps mapping available on a Wikimedia Foundation site and complies with the site rules.

  talk) 14:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• talk) 14:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]